See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/251280433

Under These Conditions: Gender, Parole and the Governance of

Reintegration

Article  in  British Journal of Criminology · July 2009

DOI: 10.1093/bjc/azp015

CITATIONS READS
76 1,003

2 authors:

Sarah Turnbull Kelly Hannah-Moffat

University of Waterloo University of Toronto
43 PUBLICATIONS   533 CITATIONS    47 PUBLICATIONS   2,273 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Home and Away: Gender, Nation, Deportation View project

Art as Resistance View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sarah Turnbull on 07 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

doi:10.1093/bjc/azp015 BRIT. J. CRIMINOL. (2009) 49, 532–551
Advance Access publication 21 April 2009

UNDER THESE CONDITIONS

Gender, Parole and the Governance of Reintegration

Sarah Turnbull and Kelly Hannah-Moffat*

Despite the widespread use of conditions in various phases of the criminal justice system (e.g. bail,
probation, parole), there has been little theoretical examination of their purposes or the implications
associated with their use. This paper extends the theoretical discussion of women prisoners’

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at Bodleian Library on April 10, 2013

reintegration by focusing on parole conditions as a form of ‘targeted governance’. Using national
data on federally sentenced female offenders in Canada, it shows how parole boards constitute the
female parolee as a fractured subject consisting of various ‘risk/need factors’ to which parole
conditions are applied. It also considers how conditions are techniques of targeted governance that
exemplify an integrated exercise of penal power, which is simultaneously productive and repressive:
conditions help prepare women prisoners for ‘freedom’ on parole by mobilizing particular techniques
of self-governance, while at the same time operate as modes of surveillance that police the boundaries
of acceptable conduct.

Introduction
Transitions from prison to community are challenging for many women prisoners.
Correctional institutions are a unique type of space that is carefully planned,
ordered and managed. Whereas prisoners’ lives are largely over-determined in these
highly regulated environments, communities are relatively ‘free’ spaces in which
women prisoners must demonstrate their ability to be self-managed as they
reintegrate into society. Parole is one strategy for governing this transition, and the
special conditions attached to parole release facilitate re-entry by targeting the
behaviours, activities, associations and spaces connected to the gendered risk to
reoffend. This paper examines the penal technique of applying parole conditions
to female offenders and how conditions are used to produce normative, self-
governing subjects.
Scholarship on women and reintegration documents numerous barriers to re-entry,
including finding housing and employment, obtaining health care and/or social
assistance, reuniting with children and families, managing addictions and dealing with
the stigma of their criminalized status (see Shaw et al. 1991; Dodge and Pogrebin
2001; Harm and Phillips 2001; O’Brien 2001; Richie 2001; Severance 2004; Maidment
2006). This literature clarifies many impediments to re-entry, but has largely ignored
how penal techniques are used to govern women and extend the carceral gaze upon

*Sarah Turnbull, Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto, 14 Queen’s Park Crescent West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S
3K9; sarah.turnbull@utoronto.ca.
Kelly Hannah-Moffat, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto Mississauga, South
Building, Room 2097, 3359 Mississauga Road North, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, L5L 1C6; hannah.moffat@utoronto.ca.

532
© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD).
All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
 UNDER THESE CONDITIONS

release. Despite the widespread use of conditions in various phases of the criminal
justice system, their purposes and the implications associated with their use remain
under-theorized. Most of the literature is written by, and for, practitioners. It tends to
focus on bettering the supervision of conditions and enforcement techniques (see Adair
1995; Gowen 2001; Kelly 2001) and on improving offender compliance with special
conditions (Taxman and Cherkos 1995). A small body of work considers the difficulties
experienced by women under conditions in their communities (Shaw et al. 1991;
Maidment 2006; Pollack 2007; 2008b) and whether conditions meet the distinct needs
of female offenders (Mullany 2002).
Our paper extends the theoretical discussion of women’s reintegration by focusing
on parole conditions as a form of ‘targeted governance’ (Valverde 2003; Valverde and
Mopas 2004). In particular, we are interested in how the female paroled subject is

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at Bodleian Library on April 10, 2013

constituted within parole decision narratives and governed through her release
conditions. As penal techniques of risk governance, parole conditions manage parolees’
risk of reoffending by ‘targeting’ various ‘risk/need factors’, such as addictions, bad
attitudes, risky associations, mobility and poor decision-making skills. According to
Valverde and Mopas (2004: 245), the practice of targeting is ‘linked to the idea of
efficient, apolitical, knowledge-driven, “evidence-based” policy’. In this sense, targeted
governance is a more modest approach to governing than that typically associated with
penal welfarism (Garland 2001). In the context of Canadian federal parole, each
condition must relate to a clearly defined criminogenic ‘need’ and only parolees
exhibiting that need are subject to the condition designed to regulate it. Thus, rather
than applying conditions indiscriminately to all parolees, parole boards target specific
risk factors within each individual.
Conditions are applied to parole releases for undeniably practical reasons; their
widespread use in the criminal justice system attests to their appeal both to
‘commonsense’ and to practical aspects of day-to-day criminal justice operations.
Nonetheless, it is important to consider how parole conditions are regulatory techniques
that embody both productive and repressive forms of power (Hörnqvist 2007); they
help prepare women prisoners for ‘freedom’ by mobilizing particular techniques
of self-governance, while simultaneously operating as modes of surveillance that
police the boundaries of acceptable conduct. Conditions reinforce normative
assumptions about women parolees and the kind of lives they should lead. On the
surface, they are meant to manage women’s risk to reoffend; yet, they are also a ‘means
of creating accountable and thus governable and obedient citizens’ (Bosworth
2006: 68).
Our interest here is in official conceptualizations of the paroled subject as ‘susceptible
to crime’ and ‘unprepared to self-govern’ due to personal deficits (i.e. ‘criminogenic
needs’ including low self-esteem, dependency, histories of trauma/abuse, poor decision-
making skills and addiction), and how parole boards use the targeted technique of
parole conditions to guide women while making them responsible for remedying
these issues and developing (highly normative) prosocial lifestyles. As this paper
will show, women eligible for, and granted, parole must demonstrate ‘responsibility’ and
a general capacity for self-governance, cooperate with correctional efforts to reintegrate
and reform (i.e. normalize) them, and understand themselves within gendered
institutional narratives of risk, responsibility and self-change (Bosworth 2006; Pollack
2008a).
533
 TURNBULL AND HANNAH-MOFFAT

Data and Methods

Our analysis draws on national data for the total population of federally sentenced1
female prisoners in Canada who were eligible2 for parole in 2000–01. We used data
extracted from the National Parole Board’s (NPB) decision registry to determine the
number, type and rationale for parole conditions. This registry provides a detailed
justification of the NPB’s initial pre-release decisions (grants or denies) and all
subsequent post-release decisions and conduct (e.g. breaches, suspensions, revocations,
requests for changes in release conditions and responses to new offences). Our data
include documentation on the official outcome of the hearing, the rationales for the
decision and application of special conditions, the factors believed to contribute to the
offence(s) for which the prisoner was convicted and areas of risk/need. When a prisoner

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at Bodleian Library on April 10, 2013

is granted parole, the board details the conditions of her release (i.e. abstain from
alcohol, follow treatment plan, avoid certain people, etc.) and provides a separate
rationale for the application of each condition that draws on the information detailed
in the body of the decision rationale and on board members’ knowledge of her
institutional file. In accordance with NPB policy, the rationale for applying special
conditions must be clearly stated along with the board’s expectation of the offender
while on conditional release (NPB Policy Manual 2008: 7.1–4).
We analysed the parole decision data for each female prisoner in the sample
(n
=
243) and recorded the presence or absence of conditions. This yielded 180 paroled
women with conditions. Each researcher independently reviewed each of the 180 parole
decision narratives focusing on the board’s rationale for applying conditions. We noted
how conditions were discussed and used by the NPB to structure and regulate women’s
reintegration, organizing and managing the data using QSR NVivo. Four themes
emerged as prominent justifications for the use of conditions: breaking the cycle of
crime; consumption; associates; and problematic spaces. Each theme captures the
myriad ways through which paroled women’s risk is constituted and governed. Our data
also point to the production of what we term ‘the paroled subject’, upon whom
conditions are applied to govern reintegration. These narratives create and act upon a
dual subjectivity: the paroled subject as both ‘at risk’ and ‘risky’; responsible and
irresponsible; autonomous to make choices and dependent. The following sections
outline the institutional rationale for conditions and how parole decision narratives
constitute the paroled subject as a target of governance and reform. We then present
our thematic analysis of how parole conditions operate as techniques of targeted risk
governance.

Parole in the Canadian Context

Since 1992, with the enactment of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the
federal system of parole in Canada has shifted its raison d’être from rehabilitation to

1

In Canada, prisoners serving a sentence of greater than two years are under federal jurisdiction, whereas those serving under
two years are under provincial jurisdiction.
2

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act requires offenders to be considered for some type of conditional release during
their sentence of imprisonment. Eligibility for parole varies, depending upon the type of release (day or full) and length of
sentence. Typically, offenders are eligible for full parole after serving one-third of their sentence. To reach a release decision, board
members conduct an assessment of the offender’s criminal and social history, institutional behaviour and community release plan
to determine whether s/he constitutes an ‘undue risk to society’.

534
 UNDER THESE CONDITIONS

managing risk. Although parole still assists with prisoner reintegration, it is primarily
oriented towards ensuring public safety through techniques of surveillance and risk
management (Hannah-Moffat 2004b). In this context, parolees’ avoidance of ‘risky’
situations, people and spaces is an important risk reduction strategy (Cullen et al. 2002).
Parole conditions play an essential role in this strategy by specifying what parolees’ need
to avoid and by requiring some to participate in correctional programming within their
communities or through residency requirements (i.e. living at halfway houses). Common
conditions that can be applied to a prisoner’s parole release include avoiding certain
people and places, residing at a particular place, abstaining from drugs, alcohol or all
intoxicants, and attending treatment programmes or counselling. The NPB, often
under advisement from the Correctional Service of Canada, determines which conditions
will be attached to a prisoner’s parole release, and is also responsible for removing,

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at Bodleian Library on April 10, 2013

adjusting or adding conditions post-release.
NPB members may apply any condition deemed ‘reasonable and necessary for the
protection of society and facilitating the successful reintegration into society of the
offender’ (NPB Policy Manual 2008: 2.1–9). NPB policy states that parole conditions
should be targeted toward specific risks for reoffending, complied with by the parolee,
and monitored and enforced by the parole officer. When applying parole conditions,
board members are expected to be cognizant of, and sensitive to, prisoners’ needs and
circumstances as women, Aboriginal peoples and/or members of other cultural groups
(NPB Policy Manual 2008: 7.1–1). In this sense, conditions are purportedly tailored to
reflect each parolee’s background and ‘needs’ as identified in her institutional case file.
Any violation of a parole condition ‘is considered to be indicative that the risk is
becoming unacceptable and should result in immediate intervention by the supervising
authority’ (NPB Policy Manual 2008: 7.1–3).
Although the application of special conditions has a compelling practical logic, as a
form of targeted governance, it focuses on the various ‘risks’ or ‘deficits’ ascribed to
paroled women as a way to both remedy and monitor them. The female parolee is
constituted as a fractured subject composed of various ‘risk/need factors’ linked to
criminal offending. Parole conditions are a regulatory technique with multiple functions
that reflect the dual concern of assistance and surveillance. They address the causes of
crime (i.e. by helping paroled women avoid their ‘triggers’ and become ‘better’ citizens)
and deter future offending by policing behaviours and activities, and by promising a
significant consequence if they are breached—parolees may be returned to prison to
serve their sentences. Yet, conditions are also productive forms of risk management and
targeted governance that aim to activate women’s capacity to change into responsibilized,
self-governing penal subjects. As we show below, decision narratives constitute the
paroled subject and her ‘risk’ in gendered and normative ways, justifying the application
of special conditions to govern her release from prison.

Producing the Paroled Subject

According to Pollack (2008a), the institutional narratives of corrections and parole
frame criminalized women in ways that reflect the ideological orientations of these
institutions. Notions of risk permeate institutional narratives and constitute women’s
subjectivities along various lines of risk: ‘high risk’, ‘risky’ or ‘at risk’. These assessments
are largely top-down evaluations of a woman’s risk based on expert discourses, rather
535
 TURNBULL AND HANNAH-MOFFAT

than her self-identified needs or experiences (Hannah-Moffat 2004a; 2008; Pollack

2008a). Risk combines with other neoliberal regulatory strategies and gendered,
racialized and classed discourses that privilege self-sufficiency, responsibility and
empowerment as essential characteristics of ‘good citizenship’ (Hannah-Moffat 2000;
Rose 2000; Bosworth 2006; Pollack 2008a). In particular, the dominant penal mantra
that ‘crime is a choice’ (Fortin 2004: 5) positions ‘prosocial choices’ as a necessary
means of exercising one’s ‘freedom’ (Rose 1999) and demonstrating the capacity for
responsible self-governance.
The parole decision narratives analysed in this study illustrate how risk thinking
constitutes a gendered penal subject. Knowledges of risk are involved in ‘making up
people’ (Hacking 1990: 3) or what Foucault (1980: 97) has termed the ‘constitution of
subjects’. These knowledges produce particular subjectivities for paroled women as

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at Bodleian Library on April 10, 2013

targets of gendered regulation and reform. Through the decision narratives, the paroled
subject is variously positioned as a victim, a follower, a recovering addict, someone who
lacks sufficient impulse control and makes poor choices, and/or someone who suffers
from low self-esteem. Her lawbreaking is understood not in relation to larger social and
material conditions, but as a consequence of her personal failures, which are considered
to be her gendered ‘risk factors’. The decision narratives describe what is needed to
help the paroled subject to manage her risks and reintegrate into the community. Our
analysis of these narratives reveals that ‘bad choices’ and ‘pliability’ are constituted as
key characteristics of the paroled subject, and are thus targeted as risks that she must
overcome in order to be a responsible, self-governing citizen. As a technique of risk
governance, parole conditions act upon these understandings of the penal subject to
(1) direct paroled women to come to know themselves in ways that are aligned with the
framing of their feminine subjectivities as risky and vulnerable, and (2) structure and
prescribe a narrow range of ‘prosocial choices’.
The narrative of choice figures prominently in many of the decision rationales. Parole
conditions were often imposed to prevent women from repeating ‘poor choices’ they
had made in the past. This is perhaps unsurprising, given the prevailing view of crime as
a choice and of the paroled subject as essentially unreliable until she exhibits sufficient
competence to make ‘prosocial choices’. Our analysis shows that women’s criminal
histories were used as evidence of bad choices. One decision rationale notes that a
woman’s ‘criminal history discloses a persistent pattern of poor decision making and of negative
influence from criminal associates’ (7330, emphasis added). In order to reduce this ‘risk’,
she was directed to ‘avoid criminally oriented individuals and receive treatment and
counseling to address deficits and promote successful re-integration’ (7330). Another
woman was given a counselling condition in order to ‘improve [her] decision making
abilities [as it] appears warranted given the poor choices [she has] made to date and
reflected on [her] lengthy FPS [criminal record]’ (805). For these women, the pattern
of bad choices is characterized as a deficit that can be managed through parole
conditions that ostensibly address the attitudinal and psychological factors that influence
‘choice’ and improve paroled women’s reliability. These conditions therefore function
as a regulatory technique to structure ‘choice’ according to the normative value system
of the correctional authorities. The capacity for self-governance is portrayed as an
acquired trait that paroled women have yet to demonstrate to the parole boards.
The theme of pliability also emerged from the parole decision narratives as an integral
aspect of the paroled subject’s character and a source of her risk. She is constituted as
536
 UNDER THESE CONDITIONS

non-assertive, lacking self-esteem and easily influenced by others (e.g. male co-accused
and other criminal associates) and various licit and illicit substances. Her ‘choice’ of
associates must be strictly controlled via conditions until she can demonstrate to the
board that she will no longer be ‘unduly influenced by negative associates’ (7260) or
until she ceases to be ‘an influenced person’ (7935). Similarly, she must show that she
has overcome her ‘need to be liked by others’ and past experience of being ‘easily led’
(1340) through her conduct in her community. One paroled woman’s attraction to
‘easy gain’ and her ‘lax value system’ (1720) made her overly pliable in the hands of her
‘criminal peers’. Here, susceptibility to crime is due to facets of paroled women’s
character that have made them unassertive and dependent on others. However, the
paroled subject is not simply cast as a passive victim—her susceptibility to crime is
constituted as a character flaw (and thus a risk factor), as is her tendency to be

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at Bodleian Library on April 10, 2013

dependent.
Despite this weakness, the paroled subject is expected to overcome her deficits and
make prudent choices (as defined by conditions) in order to be successful on parole.
The underlying assumption is that if the paroled subject was more independent and self-
regulating, she would be less influenced by criminal others and the effects of substances,
and consequently less likely to break the law. The quotations presented here reinforce
gendered assumptions about women’s ‘dependency’ and its connection to deviant
behaviour and ‘poor choices’ (McCorkel 2004; Warner and Gabe 2008). Autonomy is
simultaneously and dichotomously framed as a necessary feature of women’s crime-free
selves and lives and as requiring external regulation and disciplinary coercion.
The constitution of the paroled subject as susceptible to crime due to bad choices and
pliability justifies the application of targeted parole conditions. Parole boards use the
resulting ‘regulated freedom’ to test women’s capacity for change and self-governance.
They govern the reintegration process by structuring decisions and directing choices,
albeit through the threat of parole suspension or revocation. As Hörnqvist (2007) has
shown, correctional strategies like parole embody forms of productive power that
mobilize technologies of the self, such as voluntary participation, responsibility and
empowerment, while simultaneously exercising opposing forms of power, such as
coercion, surveillance and the imposition of penal objectives. Here, the exercise of
seemingly contradictory forms of power produces normative subjectivities for paroled
women. For instance, parolees, like prisoners, are expected (and compelled through
surveillance and the threat of sanctions) to participate in programmes and demonstrate
particular (gendered) forms of conduct; yet, they are also ascribed autonomy because
they are ‘partially free’ and able to choose to act in a certain manner. Our data illustrate
how, in one instance, the paroled subject is recognized and expected to be independent,
self-regulating and willing to change, but is also constituted as requiring close monitoring
and direction on how to make the necessary changes and choices. Thus, parole
conditions are a technique of discipline and self-governance within an integrated
exercise of penal power that is simultaneously responsibilizing and de-responsibilizing.
As noted, paroled women are expected to know themselves in ways that are aligned
with the parole decision narratives’ framing of their feminine subjectivities as risky and
vulnerable.3 Through her release on parole, the paroled subject must prove she is

3

This, of course, does not negate the fact that women also create for themselves particular narratives that make them ‘paroleable’
in the minds of parole board members in the first place. We thank an anonymous reviewer for this insight.

537
 TURNBULL AND HANNAH-MOFFAT

capable of exercising reason—that is, assessing her options and rationally selecting the
best among them (Bosworth 2006)—and taking responsibility for ‘her life as if it were
an outcome of acts of choice’ (Rose 2003: 430). Thus, if a paroled woman uses drugs,
resulting in a positive urine test, or engages in prostitution, resulting in a new criminal
offence, these ‘choices’ are indicative of her failure at responsible self-governance and
suggest to the board that she may be a poor candidate for parole.

Parole Conditions and Targeted Regulation

The previous section argued that parole conditions can be seen as techniques of targeted
risk governance that act upon official characterizations of the female parolee as
susceptible to crime due to bad choices and pliability. Women parolees are also

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at Bodleian Library on April 10, 2013

constituted as fractured subjects composed of various ‘risk/need factors’ (e.g. substance
abuse, bad relationships, emotional/personal issues, etc.). Instead of imposing blanket
prohibitions or generalized correctional programming on paroled women, parole
boards undertake individualized assessments of women’s ‘needs’ and apply conditions
that target these deficits as a means to correct and manage them. This targeted approach
to regulating women’s conduct is premised on a logic of governance that is more rational,
cost-efficient and modest in its efforts to address social problems. Parole conditions,
much like other ‘magic bullets’ such as Prozac (Rose 2003) or targeted policing (Valverde
and Mopas 2004), are tailored to address specific problem areas in order to minimize
‘collateral damage’ (i.e. wasted resources) (see Maurutto and Hannah-Moffat 2006).
Our analysis suggests that parolees’ reintegration involves a process of obtaining the
correctional authorities’ trust and demonstrating reform by making ‘prosocial choices’—
the necessary steps to becoming a responsible, self-sufficient citizen. Parolees must
exercise prudence and restraint, forego any gratification or benefit gained through
crime, and demonstrate their compliance with conditions regulating their reintegration.
As noted earlier, our analysis revealed four themes with respect to the targeting of
conditions toward specific risk/need factors: breaking the cycle of crime; consumption;
associates; and problematic spaces. Below, we show how targeted conditions are used to
govern paroled women in multiple and often contradictory ways.

Governing through awareness: breaking patterns of behaviour

Upon release, the paroled subject is expected to have developed some insight into her
offending, know her criminogenic factors and have attended programmes designed to
reduce her risk. She should be aware of the patterns that led to her criminal offending
and be willing to institute change in her life. However, the paroled subject still remains
a risk to be managed in the community. She is viewed not so much in terms of danger
to others, but as susceptible to relapse and continuing on a negative path. Consequently,
conditions are rationalized based on the NPB’s understanding of the (gendered) causes
of crime (i.e. ‘bad choices’ and lack of agency), individual women’s ‘triggers’ (e.g.
drugs, associates, etc.) and what paroled women need to ‘break the crime cycle’. As
previous research has shown (see Hannah-Moffat 2004b; Pollack 2008a; 2008b),
institutional knowledges of women’s lawbreaking and ‘risk’ perpetuate normative
assumptions of femininity and generally treat women’s problems as moral and
psychological deficits that can be addressed through therapeutic interventions.
538
 UNDER THESE CONDITIONS

As techniques of targeted regulation, parole conditions apply the idea that patterns
of behaviour can be broken and the ‘root causes’ of offending can be addressed while
on conditional release. The special conditions applied to women’s release purportedly
target the ‘causes of [their] criminality’ (0370) in an attempt to make them aware of
their deficiencies and appeal to their (presumed) motivation to change. The parole
decision narratives suggest that it is in women’s own self-interest to know the ‘root
causes’ of their criminal behaviour and ‘triggers’, which will ostensibly help them make
the necessary changes to be law-abiding and obedient parolees (Bosworth 2006). As one
decision rationale notes:
Your lack of insight into your co-dependency issues and relationship choices are directly linked to your criminal
behaviour. A condition for psychological counseling is reasonable and necessary to manage your risk

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at Bodleian Library on April 10, 2013

and to assist with your reintegration as a law-abiding citizen. (1405, emphasis added)

This woman’s lack of awareness is named as responsible for her criminal offending, and
the requirement for counselling is targeted to address this issue. The paroled subject’s
awareness of her problems is a necessary step in the cultivation of an independent,
rational self. The board’s assumptions about women’s law-breaking are used to rationalize
the application of special conditions designed to target these deficits. Thus, conditions
attempt to govern through awareness by showing paroled women what they need to do
to become normative, law-abiding citizens.
Despite viewing paroled women as susceptible to crime, parole boards also attribute
considerable agency to them, placing on them the responsibility to change and adopt
new lifestyles. Paroled women are not fully bound to their pasts or ascribed a victim
status; nor are they viewed as traumatized by their histories to the point of apathy or
inaction. Evidence of change, or the capacity to change, is critical to the decision to
grant parole and to the application of conditions, which are meant to solidify change
and to ensure that women continue to make progress in their communities. Consequently,
parole conditions also function to ensure continued participation (and anticipated
improvement) in the paroled subject’s rehabilitation as a way to ‘break the cycle’:
Given your negative associates and your need at 20 years of age to follow the crowd and be overly influ-
enced …, a special condition to reside at a CBRF [community-based residential facility] for four
months on full parole is viewed as reasonable and necessary. This residency will permit your participation
in interventions to deal with various personal/emotional issues and to help you distance yourself from a
criminal subculture. (0465, emphasis added)

This narrative and the residency and association conditions given to this woman are
linked to the board’s perception of her as ‘at risk’ and an immature follower who needs
to sever negative relationships and make better choices in order to remain crime-free.
In this way, parole conditions allow for therapeutic interventions that target the causes
of women’s crime as identified by the parole board.
Paroled women must also prove to the board, through their parole release, that they
are capable of exercising their (limited) freedom in a responsible, self-sufficient manner.
The decision rationales contain gendered narratives about crime, choice and
responsibility that paroled women are expected to understand and internalize as
essential to their processes of reform. Conditions are thus used to help paroled women
develop prosocial lifestyles. For instance, women’s ‘personal/emotional problems
stemming from childhood abuse issues’ (1355), ‘lack of boundaries’ and ‘self-esteem’
539
 TURNBULL AND HANNAH-MOFFAT

issues (8275) are targeted with psychological counselling and abstinence from drugs
and alcohol. Parole conditions also help women avoid the risks of the sex trade or drug
and gang ‘cultures’ through prohibitions on social interactions with ‘criminal peers’.
Conditions govern women through their awareness of their deficiencies—whether
they are ‘personal/emotional problems’, ‘co-dependency issues’, bad ‘relationship
choices’ or ‘lack of boundaries’—and structure a set of actions that must be undertaken
to create improved, crime-free selves. In pursuit of personal transformation, the paroled
subject is expected to choose to obey her conditions. Our data therefore suggest that
parole conditions embody a form of productive power that aims to govern individuals
through their freedoms and aspirations, rather than in spite of them (Rose 1999). Power
is productive because it appeals to paroled women’s self-interests and mobilizes the
common goal to remain out of prison.

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at Bodleian Library on April 10, 2013

Monitoring risk and activating self-governance: surveillance and consumption
Consumption of licit and illicit substances is a behaviour that emerges as especially
problematic within the parole decision narratives. Drug and alcohol use is consistently
linked to criminal activity and identified as a barrier to rehabilitation and accepting
responsibility for past and future behaviour. Conditions to abstain from alcohol, drugs
or all intoxicants as a way to manage risk were common. Although no women in our
sample were explicitly required to take prescription medicine, some were given a
condition for psychiatric counselling to monitor their consumption of psychotropics. As
a targeted technique of regulation, conditions do not promote the reduction of harms
associated with drug use, but demand complete abstinence. Those who are given abstain
conditions are constituted as unable to consume certain substances in a responsible
manner. Instead, consumption is assumed to lead to reoffending and only strict
abstinence is associated with prosocial values and lifestyles. Paroled women are sometimes
given conditions requiring them to attend alcohol and/or drug treatment programmes to
deal with the ‘root causes’ of these behaviours, such as trauma related to previous
victimization.
The following excerpts are typical reasons for abstain conditions cited within the
parole decision narratives:
In view of the direct relationship between substance abuse and your criminal history, the board considers
it imperative that you abstain from using either drugs or alcohol. You will also require further pro-
gramming in the community in order to help you maintain abstinence. (7735)

Alcohol abuse has been a contributor to your current and previous criminal behavior and has led also
to medical difficulties and emotional instability. For these reasons, the special condition is seen as
reasonable and necessary to assist in the management of risk and to promote your rehabilitation.
(3000)

Within these excerpts, the substances themselves are ascribed influential powers. It is as
if the substance takes on a ‘life of its own’ (Reith 2004: 268). The use (and abuse) of
intoxicants increases paroled women’s susceptibility to crime and reoffending as it
‘impair[s] the ability to make oneself and one’s risks calculable’ (Moore and Valverde
2000: 517). In other words, the paroled subject cannot effectively self-govern and make
rational choices if she is using drugs, alcohol or other substances.
540
 UNDER THESE CONDITIONS

The prohibition of both licit and illicit substance use for certain women is framed as
central to ‘recovery and rehabilitation’ (0860). This condition can also be effectively
monitored and policed through drug testing. Yet, parole conditions that ban substance
use, regulate consumption and require compliance with random testing reach beyond
the prohibition or supervision of addictions. Similar to requiring monitoring of a
parolee’s prescribed psychotropic medications, these conditions are intrusive and
comprehensive because they facilitate incursions into, and subjection of, the paroled
subject’s body (cf. Hyde 1997). Regulating consumption prohibits the paroled subject
from choosing to consume certain substances, but can also require her to submit to
searches for ‘threatening’ substances that, if ingested, are equated with an increased
risk of recidivism. In this sense, the paroled subject and her body are made ‘public’ and
justifiably searchable. These conditions limit the expectation of privacy and enhance

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at Bodleian Library on April 10, 2013

the regulation of consumptive choices. Moreover, conditions requiring women’s
continued use of prescribed psychotropic medications or compliance with urinalyses
enable prolonged regulation of the body. These conditions can be situated along a
continuum of penal practices that passively and overtly intervene on, and regulate, a
criminalized penal subject.
As Pollack’s (2008b) research indicates, abstinence conditions are particularly difficult
for paroled women to follow in their communities; their violations are the leading cause
of women’s return to prison. Ironically, although the board’s objective is to target the
causes of crime and addiction through parole conditions, many women are conditionally
released into communities with high concentrations of people both using and selling
drugs, making avoidance difficult. And while women are encouraged to be ‘honest’ and
‘transparent’ with their parole officers about any ‘lapses’, this can lead to women having
their parole suspended or revoked (Pollack 2008b). The subjection of the parolee’s
body to urinalyses and other detection technologies further extends the carceral gaze
and increases the likelihood of parole violations.

Regulating through relationships: associates and the slippery slope

Associates are also framed as a source of risk for women on parole and certain associations
are regulated through the application of conditions. The typical non-association
condition requires parolees to ‘refrain from meeting or communicating with any person
whom [they] know to have a criminal record or for whom [they] have reason to believe
that he/she has a criminal record’ (0465), which may include friends, intimate partners
and ‘criminally involved’ family members. In some cases, the non-association condition
expressly requires the avoidance of ‘known drug users/traffickers’ (0135) or other
specified individuals, most often co-accused. Although non-association conditions are
applied to both male and female parolees, we contend that these conditions have
different implications for women on parole. Recent research (see Hannah-Moffat 2008;
Pollack 2008a; 2008b) suggests that women’s relationships are increasingly targeted as
sites of gendered regulation and reform. The incorporation of ‘relational theory’ into
Canadian penal policy (e.g. Fortin 2004) places greater emphasis on criminalized
women’s intimate and familial relationships as both ‘protective factors’ and ‘criminogenic
risks’. In other words, women’s relationships are being re-examined and recast according
to gendered risk knowledges that utilize normative understandings of ‘functional
relationships’ (i.e. heterosexual, monogamous, cohabitating), which are juxtaposed to
541
 TURNBULL AND HANNAH-MOFFAT

‘dysfunctional relationships’. These understandings are deployed to assess the

criminogenic potential of various relationships and govern women’s associations while
they are on parole.
The board’s assessment of the paroled subject’s character is also mobilized to justify
the application of non-association conditions. Her susceptibility to crime, poor decision-
making skills, immaturity and deficient value system are attributes that heighten her
receptivity to the influences of others and increase her likelihood of being ‘enticed’
back into the criminal ‘lifestyle’ (2010). As such, ‘bad’ associates are viewed as the
slippery slope paroled women must negotiate in order manage their reintegration. For
instance:
You will not be allowed to communicate with any person who has a criminal record, who is involved in

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at Bodleian Library on April 10, 2013

drug trafficking or part of organized crime because it has been determined that, in the past, you com-
mitted your crimes with such peoples or under their influence. In order not to commit a subsequent offence
it is imperative that you have no contact with other delinquents. (0505, emphasis added)

During your release, you are also forbidden from having any contacts with persons with a criminal
record or involved with the drug milieu. Such relations have led you to commit the crimes for which you are
incarcerated. (1590, emphasis added)

From these excerpts, it appears that mere association with criminalized others is believed
to lead back to crime and, as with other conditions discussed above, the wrong choices
(in this case of whom to associate with) and paroled women’s lack of autonomy are
viewed as root causes of their criminal offending.
In addition to the generic non-association condition, the parole board can impose a
special condition requiring paroled women to advise their parole officers of their
intimate relationships. As one decision rationale states:
Clearly your involvement with negative associates is also directly related to the index offence. … You
recognize that the stability of your relationships represents a key to avoiding a return to substance
abuse. As a result, the board is imposing a condition that you disclose all intimate relationships. (7945, empha-
sis added)

This quote reflects the extent of the board’s governance and surveillance of women’s
relationships and associations. Although this condition was rarely imposed in our
sample, it speaks to the extension of the carceral gaze over every aspect of paroled
women’s lives. We know from Pollack’s (2007) research that women’s intimate
relationships are under a microscope while they are supervised on parole. As Pollack
notes, this condition is typically applied to women who have histories of being abused
by men, but it is still considered a way to manage the women’s risk. Through this condition,
women’s previous experiences of victimization within relationships are reframed as
individual risk factors that increase the possibility of future violence and therefore
recidivism. As a result, paroled women’s intimate relationships ‘become a gendered site
of surveillance and regulation’ (Pollack 2007: 166). Not only is there concern about
whom a woman associates with, but the quality and substance of those relationships are
scrutinized and assessed.
Clearly, the paroled subject’s choice of associates is conceptualized as particularly
problematic, given her past history of choosing the ‘wrong’ friends and intimate partners.
In this context, paroled women are portrayed as immature followers who need guidance
542
 UNDER THESE CONDITIONS

(through non-association conditions) on how to make the ‘right’ choices of friends,

acquaintances and intimate partners. In effect, paroled women are expected to seek
contact with ‘prosocial’ individuals—those ‘ideal’ citizens whose enmeshment in the
‘circuits of work, family, consumption, and community’ (Rose 2002: 216) provide a
‘healthy’ model that paroled women can aspire to become. And, given the emphasis on
the importance of relationships for criminalized women (Bloom et al. 2003; Fortin 2004),
it is tacitly accepted that paroled women need to surround themselves with positive
influences; slipping back into substance use and then crime is more likely when surrounded
by people who are accepting of, and/or engaged in, a range of criminalized behaviours.
However, in an effort to sever women’s criminalized networks, paroled women are
often isolated completely from important sources of support. The non-association
condition can lead to feelings of isolation when relationships developed in correctional

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at Bodleian Library on April 10, 2013

institutions are not allowed to continue in the community (Severance 2004; Pollack
2008b). Although this condition has practical logic and commonsense appeal, it also
constructs barriers to reintegration. The idea that paroled women can ‘start over’ and
develop new social networks is simplistic. It ignores the stigmatization that comes with a
criminal record, as well as the material conditions confronting many paroled women
upon their release. It also negates the effects of racism, colonialism and classism that
results in the over-criminalization of particular communities and the increased likelihood
that they will be included in the list of people to avoid.

Spatial regulation through mobility and residency conditions

The final theme emerging from our analysis is ‘problematic spaces’. Women categorized
as having difficulty with substances or gambling may receive special conditions that
regulate them spatially in their communities by controlling their movements and where
they live. Parole conditions that restrict mobility and require residency in halfway houses
as a stipulation of partial freedom are spatial techniques of governance that facilitate
the surveillance of women and the production of normative, self-governing citizens by
targeting their individual risk/need factors. We next show how spatial regulation is used
to govern paroled women and how certain spaces are problematized as criminogenic
for these women. In much the same way as the paroled subject is constituted as ‘flawed’
within the decision rationales, so are certain spaces and people. We examine the two
primary conditions that regulate paroled women’s mobility and residence: (1) avoid
particular places; and (2) reside at a specific place.

Techniques of avoidance
The aim of the first spatial condition is to limit opportunities for reoffending based on
women’s criminal histories:
In view of the nature of your index offence, the board is imposing an abstain alcohol condition. We are
also imposing a condition that prohibits you from entering bars, taverns, etcetera, due to the fact that
some of your drinking on the day of the offence occurred at a drinking establishment. (1460, emphasis added)

Given your past lifestyle it is appropriate that you avoid both negative associations and places where
you are likely to encounter individuals using alcohol and drugs. (0880)

543
 TURNBULL AND HANNAH-MOFFAT

The condition prohibiting attendance in liquor establishments targets the paroled

subject’s difficulty with alcohol and potential to be influenced by other users, and
governs her using the strategy of avoidance. She must abstain from consuming alcohol
and avoid any establishment that serves this substance because she risks slipping back
into crime. Albeit a ‘normal’ and pleasurable activity for some, drinking is redefined
through parole narratives as risky and counterproductive to paroled women’s reintegration.
Occupying spaces such as liquor establishments heightens paroled women’s exposure
to the ‘deviant’ activities typically associated with a gendered risk to reoffend. In effect,
drinking establishments become criminogenic spaces creating risky situations for
women that can result in a violation of other conditions, such as communicating with
criminal associates or consuming drugs.
Similarly, gambling establishments are considered risky spaces that certain paroled

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at Bodleian Library on April 10, 2013

women must avoid. Like liquor establishments, gambling venues, including casinos and
bars with video lottery terminals (VLTs), are framed as legitimate for some people, but
risky for those with a proclivity towards crime and a lack of control or ‘good’ judgment.
According to the parole decision narratives, gambling is linked to the ‘decision to
become involved in criminal behaviour’ (0590), and thus the avoidance of gambling
establishments is seen as ‘imperative’ to managing risk (0110):
You would place yourself in a very high risk situation if you were to be in a casino, or where there are
VLT’s, and/or in a bingo hall. (1735)

Linked to the official characterization of paroled women as ‘susceptible to crime’ and

‘risky’ is the assumption that if they are in a criminogenic space, they will become
criminals again. As a result, gambling and liquor establishments are seen as
inappropriate spaces for these women if they want to be law-abiding. The parole
narratives note that any ‘slip’ in abstention or entering these establishments could
result in a return to crime. To prevent such relapses, the risky spaces themselves must
be excluded from the array of legitimate spaces paroled women are allowed to occupy.
This spatial mechanism of exclusion is used to dissuade women from drinking,
gambling and associating with others who are engaged in these activities by removing
the opportunities for such behaviours (Merry 2001). The correct ‘choice’ for paroled
women—as dictated by the special condition—is to avoid these criminogenic spaces.
As such, the constitution of these establishments as ‘risky’ delegitimizes them as
places for leisure, social interaction and even potential employment for these
women.
Mobility conditions can, and often intend do, separate women from past social
networks—particularly those viewed as antithetical to ‘good citizenship’. The contradictory
framing of the paroled subject as unprepared for self-governance and yet responsibilized
for her reintegration enables the application of conditions that work to spatially regulate
parolees through the problematic spaces of their communities. Because of their past
behaviours and ‘risk/need factors’, parole boards appear to have little faith in paroled
women’s abilities to self-govern in these spaces.
Our analysis of the parole decision narratives also suggests that in much the same way
as the penal subject is constituted as ‘flawed’ within the decision rationales, so are certain
spaces and the people imagined to exist therein. These spaces (i.e. bars, casinos, certain
neighbourhoods, etc.) are framed as ‘criminogenic’ when they are thought to possess
particular characteristics linked to involvement in criminal activity (Hannah-Moffat
544
 UNDER THESE CONDITIONS

1999).4 Although these spaces are not inherently criminogenic and non-criminalized
people can, and do, successfully negotiate them, they are characterized as risky for
paroled women; so-called criminogenic ‘spaces are reduced to their propensities for
criminal activity, and some spaces are produced as always already criminal’ (Herbert and
Brown 2006: 773).
As a number of critical geographers have argued, it is important to interrogate how
spaces are constituted and to examine the material and symbolic effects of these
processes (e.g. Gieryn 2000; Merry 2001; Gallagher and Fusco 2006; Beckett and Herbert
2008). Blomley and Sommers (1999: 265) argue that ‘the ability to constitute space …
is a crucial factor in the exercise of governmental power, for it makes possible the
regularity which is necessary for the motivation of self-rule’. Although parole decision
narratives do not go so far as to demarcate specific neighbourhoods or establishments

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at Bodleian Library on April 10, 2013

as spaces that all parolees must avoid, we suggest that the application of special conditions
aims to protect paroled women by providing them with knowledge of which spaces to
avoid in order to reduce their risk of reoffending. Indeed, ‘certain place meanings are
constructed and reproduced through the development of reputations and labels about
the area and its residents’ (Sharpe 2000: 425). These associations ‘become part of the
practical consciousness and behaviour of social actors’ (Sharpe 2000: 425). The
whereabouts of most ‘criminogenic spaces’ are popularly known among residents and
public agencies alike. Parole boards and parole officers are attentive to these areas
because they represent potential difficulties for offenders re-entering their communities
(Cullen et al. 2002). Conditions requiring the avoidance of particular spaces target and
spatially regulate the paroled subject’s ‘risk factors’—even though these are often the
spaces paroled women come from, and are returned to, once released from prison.

Under a ‘watchful eye’

The second condition that regulates paroled women’s mobility requires parolees to
reside at a specific place. Paroled women who are exiting from highly ordered penal
spaces are characterized as needing help to negotiate the unregulated and precarious
spaces that lie ‘outside’ the prison walls. Residency conditions that require women to
live in community-based residential facilities (CBRFs), or halfway houses, are used to
regulate re-entry and extend the penal gaze. Moreover, these conditions continue
to externally govern women’s freedom, at least until they demonstrate the capacity for
self-governance.
The NPB can apply residency conditions to a woman’s parole release that outline
where she is to live and for how long. For women who are assessed as being at greater
risk of reoffending and/or as unprepared to effectively negotiate the ‘unregulated’
spaces of their communities, halfway houses provide increased structure, surveillance
and access to programming. Halfway houses allow women parolees to be ‘effectively
removed from [their] high-risk situations as well as insulated from most temptations’
(8145). When halfway houses are not sufficient in managing women’s risk, the prison is
the logical backup. Thus, for women deemed in need of greater structure and

4

The relationships between crime and the environment have been studied since the nineteenth century, eventually leading to the
establishment of ‘environmental criminology’. Various theories about the ‘geography’ of crime argue that crime is more prevalent
in certain spaces because of their social composition in terms of social class, age and ethnicity (see Bottoms 1994 for a review).

545
 TURNBULL AND HANNAH-MOFFAT

accountability, halfway houses and prisons are, by default, constituted as ‘suitable’

spaces.
The parole narratives represent halfway houses as spaces of risk management that
provide paroled women ‘period[s] of high level structure and supervision’ (8310).
These spaces allow the paroled subject to gradually establish herself in the community
while under supervision. Gradual and supervised release ‘allows for facilitating more
independence, establishing a more structured lifestyle’ and ensuring ‘more sensible
choices’ (7935). As the following decision narratives reveal, without such support,
women’s risk is unmanageable:
Your lengthy criminal history and history of breaching various forms of conditional release indicate
that you present a high risk to reoffend in the absence of the structure afforded by residency in a halfway house setting.

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at Bodleian Library on April 10, 2013

(0880, emphasis added)

You are a high risk to re-offend non-violently and will require the structure and control of a halfway house for
an extended period in order to establish credibility to live independently. (3065, emphasis added)

These excerpts highlight two different, albeit interrelated, constructions of space:

structured space and supervised space. Each aspect of space aids in the production of
certain gendered forms of citizenship and strategies of risk management. Structured
space established routines and schedules for the paroled subject, thereby regimenting
her time and activities and decreasing her opportunities for reoffending. This residency
condition aims to produce ‘good’ gendered subjects who are orderly and responsible
for duties such as maintaining work schedules, attending correctional programming,
preparing meals, doing chores, looking after children and so forth. The supervised
space of a halfway house allows parolees to be monitored and ensures that their risks are
properly managed. As spaces of supervision, halfway houses are ostensibly free from
‘temptations’ through technologies of surveillance that aim to produce disciplined, self-
governing subjects. Thus, through both structure and supervision, the spaces of halfway
houses are supposed to inculcate in paroled women the ideals of responsibility and self-
sufficiency so that they can learn how to care for themselves (and others) once they
move into unstructured and unsupervised spaces. The residency condition is illustrative
of the simultaneous exercise of repressive and productive forms of penal power: it
expands the carceral gaze into the community as a way to monitor and control, and
encourages the production of self-governing, law-abiding citizens.
Although curfews are not typically imposed on paroled women through conditions,
halfway houses typically require residents to be ‘home’ for ‘the night’ (e.g. 11 pm to 7
am). This structuring of the paroled subject’s time is linked to strategies of risk
management that target her deficits and govern her movements in and through space.
Paroled women are required to be within the structured and supervised spaces of the
halfway house during certain times of the day, ostensibly under the pretence that night-
time is riskier for women than daytime (Pain 1997). Again, normative assumptions
about ‘good’ behaviour for women are embedded into this spatio-temporal framing and
stipulation of where women ‘belong’ at any particular time of day (Martel 2006).
For some women, living successfully in a halfway house gives them the opportunity to
‘prove’ to their parole officers and the parole board that they are capable of negotiating
freedom and addressing their risk/need factors. It also lets them demonstrate that they
546
 UNDER THESE CONDITIONS

are willing and able to make responsible choices. Moreover, the halfway house allows for
the targeting of necessary interventions that ensure ‘proper’ independent living:
Given you are viewed by the Board as a high risk to reoffend in a non-violent fashion, your living
arrangements are not conducive to prosocial living, and interventions are required in a vary of domains, a
special condition to reside at a CBRF for four months on full parole is viewed as reasonable and neces-
sary. This residency will permit your participation in interventions to help deal with various personal/
emotional issues and to help you distance yourself from a criminal subculture. (0465, emphasis added)

This excerpt highlights the normative framing of many women prisoners’ home
environments as inherently ‘criminogenic’ and the imperative to ‘distance’ them from
risky spaces, activities and ‘criminal subcultures’—particularly domestic ones. It also
ensures that they will participate in the necessary rehabilitative programming (typically

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at Bodleian Library on April 10, 2013

prescribed by other parole conditions) that continues to work on their deficits. In
addition, halfway houses ‘buffer’ paroled women who are unprepared to negotiate the
unregulated spaces of their communities and exercise the requisite will power in the
face of various temptations.
The reasons for residency conditions frame halfway houses as ‘safe’ and ‘orderly’
transitional spaces. In contrast to the apparently risky spaces of the private (and thus
unsupervised) home, halfway houses are discursively constituted in the parole decision
narratives as effectively managing certain paroled women by keeping them separate
from risky spaces, people and activities. However, as the Canadian Human Rights
Commission (2003: 55) has reported, much of the accommodation in halfway houses is
inappropriate for paroled women: ‘… many female offenders are released to shelters
for the homeless, co-ed facilities and halfway houses located in neighbourhoods where
they were formerly drug users or sex trade workers.’ Drug use in halfway houses poses
problems for women trying to manage their addictions, while the ‘presence of men [in
co-ed facilities] can be a distraction at this critical juncture in a woman’s release plan’
(Canadian Human Rights Commission 2003: 55; see also Pollack 2008b). Halfway houses
reflect binary assumptions about order and chaos, safety and insecurity, inside and
outside (Wardhaugh 1999; Pain 2001), but should be seen as ambiguous spaces that are
at once structured/supervised and risky.
In keeping with Osborne and Rose’s (1999: 754) argument that security cannot be
‘thought of in absolute terms’, halfway houses may not be able to protect and regulate
paroled women through measured prosocial contacts with the outside. Targeted risk
governance through spatial separation may not be completely achievable because ‘there
can be no inherently safe locales or activities’ (Osborne and Rose 1999: 754). However,
the contradictory and ambiguous nature of the halfway house is not raised in the parole
decision narratives; instead, the halfway house is starkly juxtaposed to criminogenic and
unregulated spaces.

Implications and Conclusion: Problematic Silences and the Unspoken Expectations of

Reintegration
As a penal technique of ‘managing’ reintegration, parole conditions both help and
control penal subjects deemed ‘unprepared for self-governance’ upon release from
prison by targeting their ‘risk/need factors’ and promoting normative lifestyles. In this
sense, parole conditions are a technique of targeted governance that reflects both
547
 TURNBULL AND HANNAH-MOFFAT

productive and repressive forms of penal power. From our analysis, the discourse of
‘choice’ pervades the parole decision narratives and, we suggest, informs the parole
boards’ expectations of women on parole. Within this framework, paroled women’s
choices are structured and regulated through conditions under the assumption that
they are not yet prepared for responsible self-governance; yet, they are simultaneously
held responsible if they exercise their autonomy to make ‘bad’ choices. The discourse of
choice hides the material conditions and histories—poverty, racism, physical and sexual
abuse—that frame ‘choice’ (Razack 1998) and structure how and why some women end
up in prison and on parole in the first place. It also assumes that all paroled women are
able (and willing) to minimize their risk by avoiding various dubious activities, risky
friends and no-go spaces upon release from prison. The assumption that paroled women
are able to successfully reintegrate into their communities as a function of ‘choice’

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at Bodleian Library on April 10, 2013

ignores the role of social privilege in this process. However, due to a lack of alternatives
and the neoliberal erosion of social safety nets, many paroled women return to
communities beleaguered by poverty and other forms of structural inequality, including
racism, sexism and unemployment (Richie 2001). Poverty and lack of housing can put
women back into problematic home environments characterized by abuse (Harm and
Phillips 2001). Creating new social networks is also challenging, since paroled women
are expected to sever all ties to other criminalized persons (Pollack 2008b). On a practical
level, parole conditions often conflict with the demands of everyday life.
What is interesting about the parole decision rationales, we argue, is also what is not said
about other legitimate behaviours, associations and spaces open to women on parole. This
raises questions about the unspoken expectations for reintegration placed upon paroled
women by penal authorities. The consistent framing of the paroled subject as ‘deficient’
and dysfunctional and the focus on her inability to effectively cope with ‘freedom’ raises
questions as to where women on parole ‘belong’. The decision narratives highlight the
need for paroled women to find ‘meaningful’ and ‘prosocial’ relationships, activities and
spaces. Yet, they speak largely in terms of ‘avoidance’ and do much to delineate the
boundaries around risky people, problematic activities and uninhabitable spaces.
Notions about what is (or should be) ‘meaningful’ and ‘prosocial’ for paroled women
are based on ‘idealized lifestyles’ that reflect whiteness, heterosexuality, ablebodiedness
and middle-class norms. Under the conditions of their release, paroled women are
expected to pursue such lifestyles as a way to change themselves and avoid being returned
to prison. In particular, such prosocial pursuits appear to be ‘healthy’ homes, places of
(legitimate) employment or education and ‘meaningful’ relationships with intimate
partners, kids, family and friends. Arguably, these pursuits are considered respectable
because they conform to the gendered characteristics of normative citizenship; that is,
they relate to notions of domesticity, motherhood, property, self-reliance (through paid
employment) and self-improvement. Presumably, these idealized lifestyles will help
women ‘break the cycle of crime’, establish prosocial associations, avoid problematic
consumption of substances and distance themselves from criminogenic spaces. These
lifestyles, however, do not resonate with many paroled women’s experiences and, for
some, are not feasible possibilities. Although ‘some women do quite well putting their
lives back together when they are released from prison’ (Richie 2001: 370), without
access to affordable housing and well paying jobs, it becomes difficult for many paroled
women to establish themselves according to the idealized dictates of normative
citizenship.
548
 UNDER THESE CONDITIONS

Funding
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Linn Clark, Michael Mopas and Mariana Valverde for their comments
on earlier drafts of this paper.

References
Adair, D. (1995), ‘Enforcing the “Association” Condition’, Federal Probation, 59: 76–80.

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at Bodleian Library on April 10, 2013

Beckett, K. and Herbert, S. (2008), ‘Dealing with Disorder: Social Control in the Post-
Industrial City’, Theoretical Criminology, 12: 5–30.
Blomley, N. and Sommers, J. (1999), ‘Mapping Urban Space: Governmentality and
Cartographic Struggles in Inner City Vancouver’, in R. Smandych, ed., Governable Places,
261–86. Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Company Ltd.
Bloom, B., Owen, B. and Covington, S. (2003), Gender-Responsive Strategies: Research, Practice,
and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders. Washington: National Institute of Corrections,
available online at www.nicic.org/Library/018017.
Bosworth, M. (2006), ‘Creating the Responsible Prisoner: Federal Admission and
Orientation Packs’, Punishment and Society, 9: 67–85.
Bottoms, A. (1994), ‘Environmental Criminology’, in M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner,
eds, The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 585–656. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Canadian Human Rights Commission (2003), Protecting Their Rights: A Systemic Review of
Human Rights in Correctional Services for Federally Sentenced Women. Ottawa: Canadian Human
Rights Commission, available online at www.chrc-ccdp.ca.
Cullen, F., Eck, J. and Lowenkamp, C. (2002), ‘Environmental Corrections: A New Paradigm
for Effective Probation and Parole Supervision’, Federal Probation, 66: 28–37.
Dodge, M. and Pogrebin, M. (2001), ‘Collateral Costs of Imprisonment for Women:
Complications of Reintegration’, The Prison Journal, 81: 42–54.
Fortin, D. (2004), Program Strategy for Women Offenders. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada,
available online at http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/fsw/fsw18/fsw18_e.pdf.
Foucault, M. (1980), ‘Two Lectures’, in C. Gordon, ed., Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews
and Other Writings, 1972–1977, pp.78–108. London: Harvester.
Gallagher, K. and Fusco, C. (2006), ‘I.D.ology and the Technologies of Public (School)
Space: An Ethnographic Inquiry into the Neo-Liberal Tactics of Social (Re)production’,
Ethnography and Education, 1: 301–18.
Garland, D. (2001), The Culture of Control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gieryn, T. (2000), ‘A Space for Place in Sociology’, Annual Review of Sociology, 26: 463–96.
Gowen, D. (2001), ‘Remote Location Monitoring: A Supervision Strategy to Enhance Risk
Control’, Federal Probation, 65: 38–41.
Hacking, I. (1990), The Taming of Chance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hannah-Moffat, K. (1999), ‘Moral Agent or Actuarial Subject: Risk and Canadian Women’s
Imprisonment’, Theoretical Criminology, 3: 71–94.
——(2000), ‘Prisons that Empower: Neo-liberal Governance in Canadian Women’s Prisons’,
British Journal of Criminology, 40: 510–31.
549
 TURNBULL AND HANNAH-MOFFAT

——(2004a), ‘Criminogenic Need and the Transformative Risk Subject: Hybridizations of

Risk/Need in Penality’, Punishment and Society, 7: 29–51.
——(2004b), ‘Losing Ground: Gendered Knowledges, Parole Risk, and Responsibility’,
Social Politics, 11: 363–85.
—— (2008), ‘Gendering Dynamic Risk: Assessing and Managing the Maternal Identities of
Women Prisoner’, in K. Hannah-Moffat and P. O’Malley, eds, Gendered Risks, 229–47.
New York: Routledge-Cavendish.
Harm, N. and Phillips, S. (2001), ‘You Can’t Go Home Again: Women and Criminal
Recidivism’, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 32: 3–21.
Herbert, S. and Brown, E. (2006), ‘Conceptions of Space and Crime in the Punitive
Neoliberal City’, Antipode, 38: 755–77.
Hörnqvist, M. (2007), ‘The Organised Nature of Power: Four Case Studies on the Current

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at Bodleian Library on April 10, 2013

Use of Repressive and Productive Interventions Based on Considerations of Risk and
Need’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stockholm University.
Hyde, A. (1997), Bodies of Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kelly, B. (2001), ‘Supervising the Cyber Criminal’, Federal Probation, 65: 8–10.
Maidment, M. (2006), Doing Time on the Outside: Deconstructing the Benevolent Community.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Martel, J. (2006), ‘To Be, One Has to Be Somewhere: Spatio-Temporality in Prison
Segregation’, British Journal of Criminology, 46: 587–612.
Maurutto, P. and Hannah-Moffat, K. (2006), ‘Assembling Risk and the Restructuring of
Penal Control’, British Journal of Criminology, 46: 438–54.
McCorkel, J. (2004), ‘Criminally Dependent? Gender, Punishment, and the Rhetoric of
Welfare Reform’, Social Politics, 11: 386–410.
Merry, S. (2001), ‘Spatial Governmentality and the New Urban Social Order: Controlling
Gender Violence through Law’, American Anthropologist, 103: 16–29.
Moore, D. and Valverde, M. (2000), ‘Maidens at Risk: “Date Rape Drugs” and the Formation
of Hybrid Risk Knowledges’, Economy and Society, 29: 514–31.
Mullany, J. (2002), ‘Special Conditions for Female Probationers: Disparity or Discrimination’,
The Justice Professional, 15: 169–80.
National Parole Board (2008), National Parole Board Policy Manual, Electronic Version, Vol. 1,
No.3. Ottawa: National Parole Board, available online at www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/infocntr/
policym/polman-eng.shtml.
O’Brien, P. (2001), ‘“Just Like Baking a Cake”: Women Describe the Necessary Ingredients
for Successful Reentry After Incarceration’, Families in Society, 82: 287–95.
Osborne, T. and Rose, N. (1999), ‘Governing Cities: Notes on the Spatialization of Virtue’,
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 17: 737–60.
Pain, R. (1997), ‘Social Geographies of Women’s Fear of Crime’, Transactions of the Institute
of British Geographers, 22: 231–44.
Pain, R. (2001), ‘Gender, Race, Age and Fear in the City’, Urban Studies, 38: 899–913.
Pollack, S. (2007), ‘“I’m Just Not Good in Relationships”: Victimization Discourses and the
Gendered Regulation of Criminalized Women’, Feminist Criminology, 2: 158–74.
——(2008a), ‘Labelling Clients “Risky”: Social Work and the Neo-liberal Welfare State’,
British Journal of Social Work Advance Access published May 30, 2008, 1–16.
——(2008b), Locked In, Locked Out: Imprisoning Women in the Shrinking and Punitive
Welfare State, available online at www.wlu.ca/docsnpubs_detail.php?grp_id = 1067&doc_
id = 30852.
550
 UNDER THESE CONDITIONS

Razack, S. (1998), ‘Race, Space, and Prostitution: The Making of the Bourgeois Subject’,
Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 10: 338–76.
Reith, G. (2004), ‘Consumption and its Discontents: Addiction, Identity and the Problem
of Freedom’, British Journal of Sociology, 55: 283–300.
Richie, B. (2001), ‘Challenges Incarcerated Women Face as they Return to their Communities:
Findings from Life History Interviews’, Crime and Delinquency, 47: 368–89.
Rose, N. (1999), Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
——(2000), ‘Government and Control’, British Journal of Criminology, 40: 321–39.
——(2002), ‘At Risk of Madness’, in T. Baker and J. Simon, eds, Embracing Risk, 209–37.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
—— (2003), ‘The Neurochemical Self and Its Anomalies’ in R. Ericson and A. Doyle, eds,

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at Bodleian Library on April 10, 2013

Risk and Morality, 407–37. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Severance, T. (2004), ‘Concerns and Coping Strategies of Women Inmates Concerning
Release: “It’s Going to Take Somebody in My Corner”’, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation,
38: 73–97.
Sharpe, B. (2000), ‘Geographies of Criminal Victimization in Canada’, Canadian Geographer,
44: 418–28.
Shaw M with Rodgers, K., Blanchette, J., Hattem, T., Thomas, L. S. and Tamarack,
L. (1991), The Release Study: Survey of Federally Sentenced Women in the Community. Ottawa:
Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada.
Taxman, F. and Cherkos, R. (1995), ‘Intermediate Sanctions: Dealing with Technical
Violators’, Corrections Today, 57: 46.
Valverde, M. (2003), ‘Targeted Governance and the Problem of Desire’, in R. Ericson and
A. Doyle, eds, Risk and Morality, 438–58. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Valverde, M. and Mopas, M. (2004), ‘Insecurity and the Dream of Targeted Governance’,
in W. Larner and W. Walters, eds, Global Governmentality, 233–50. New York: Routledge.
Wardhaugh, J. (1999), ‘The Unaccommodated Woman: Home, Homelessness and Identity’,
The Sociological Review, 47: 91–109.
Warner, J. and Gabe, J. (2008), ‘Risk, Mental Disorder and Social Work Practice: A Gendered
Landscape’, British Journal of Social Work, 38: 117–34.

551

View publication stats