Incarceration and Generation Volume Ii Challenging Generational Relations 1St Edition Silvia Gomes Maria Full Chapter

Incarceration And Generation, Volume
II: Challenging Generational Relations

1st Edition Silvia Gomes Maria
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/incarceration-and-generation-volume-ii-challenging-g
enerational-relations-1st-edition-silvia-gomes-maria/
PALGRAVE STUDIES IN
PRISONS AND PENOLOGY
Incarceration
and Generation,
Volume II
Challenging Generational Relations
Edited by
Silvia Gomes
Maria João Leote de Carvalho
Vera Duarte
Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology
Series Editors
Ben Crewe, Institute of Criminology,
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Yvonne Jewkes, Social & Policy Sciences,
University of Bath, Bath, UK
Thomas Ugelvik, Faculty of Law,
University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
This is a unique and innovative series, the first of its kind dedi-
cated entirely to prison scholarship. At a historical point in which
the prison population has reached an all-time high, the series seeks to
analyse the form, nature and consequences of incarceration and related
forms of punishment. Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology provides
an important forum for burgeoning prison research across the world.
Series Advisory Board: Anna Eriksson (Monash University), Andrew
M. Jefferson (DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture), Shadd
Maruna (Rutgers University), Jonathon Simon (Berkeley Law, University
of California) and Michael Welch (Rutgers University).
More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14596
Silvia Gomes ·
Maria João Leote de Carvalho · Vera Duarte
Editors
Incarceration
and Generation,
Volume II
Challenging Generational Relations
Editors
Silvia Gomes Maria João Leote de Carvalho
Nottingham Trent University CICS.NOVA - Interdisciplinary Centre of
Nottingham, UK Social Sciences
School of Social Sciences and Humanities
Vera Duarte Universidade NOVA de Lisboa (NOVA
University Institute of Maia—ISMAI FCSH)
Maia, Portugal Lisbon, Portugal
Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology

ISBN 978-3-030-82275-0 ISBN 978-3-030-82276-7 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82276-7
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher,
whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting,
reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical
way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software,
or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Cover credit: Smartha/Alamy Stock Photo
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland
AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgements
Writing a book in a time of pandemic has been an incredibly challenging

process. The editors are forever indebted to all the authors for having
accepted the challenge to contribute with their time and expertise to
this book and for making different geographies more visible through this
crossover of incarceration and generational studies.
We would like to acknowledge Palgrave Macmillan for the support
provided in making this book possible, particularly to Josie Taylor for
the keen insights and for believing in this project since its beginning. We
are grateful to Arun Kumar Anbalagan for the ongoing editorial support
and technical editing. Our gratitude goes also to the reviewers of the first
book proposal, whose detailed and constructive comments were essential
to the final structure of the book in two volumes.
A special word of thanks to Adriana Barreiros and Fran Seftel for their
crucial role in the processes of language editing and proofreading.
We would also like to thank the reviewers of the chapters for their
efforts in providing significant insights to improve the content and
quality of each text. We highly appreciate the double role performed by
some of the authors by acting as referees.
v
vi Acknowledgements
Maria João Leote de Carvalho would like to thank the FCT—

Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia for financing her research through
a postdoctoral research grant (Ref. SFRH/BPD/116119/2016), under
Operational Human Capital Program (POCH) funds, co-financed by
the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Ministry of Science, Technology
and Higher Education (MCTES).
A final and truly special word of appreciation to all the other authors
who started with us on this journey and, regrettably, due to the circum-
stances related to the pandemic we are currently living in, were forced to
abandon this project.
Praise for Incarceration and Generation,
Volume II
“Long underdeveloped and overlooked, the intense generational effects

and relations of incarceration take center stage in this two-volume tour de
force. International, comprehensive, rigorous, and engaged, this contri-
bution gives the study of punishment a vital framework from which to
conceptualize a new form of generation studies in critical relation to an
expanding penal landscape.”
—Michelle Brown, University of Tennessee, USA
“In the face of the pervasive use of detention as a form of manage-

ment and control of a variety of populations, and given the persistent
reality of penal and non-penal incarceration in the lives of many people
over the years and across generations, this is a timely edited collec-
tion. Covering several jurisdictions and cultural contexts, and combining
different disciplinary perspectives, the two volumes offer an illuminating
angle to assess the impacts of incarceration by examining how it is lived
in diverse life stages and how it becomes present in intergenerational and
intragenerational relations.”
—Manuela Ivone Cunha, Universidade do Minho, Portugal
vii
viii Praise for Incarceration and Generation, Volume II
“Incarceration impacts not only the individual, but also their families and
society. Because incarceration rates are so high, it is vital to understand
the impact of incarceration. This book presents a well-rounded perspec-
tive on the impact of incarceration on our society, from intergenera-
tional transmission to the impact of criminalising migrants, in countries
around the world, including Cameroon, Mexico, Brazil, and other coun-
tries in Latin America, Norway, Spain, Portugal, England, and Canada.
It’s an excellent source for anyone interested in the impact of prisons in
several ways, especially from a more international and multidisciplinary
perspective.”
—Sytske Besemer, expert on intergenerational transmission, currently a
UX researcher for the integrity team at Facebook, USA
“Incarceration and Generation is the result of a truly international

and interdisciplinary cooperation, with a broad comparative scope,
pluralist in methodology, and strongly motivated by the commitment of
contributing to the effectiveness of human rights in situations of deten-
tion. It makes us rediscover the reality of imprisonment by inquiring its
impact on that essential characteristic of humans as living beings: the
fact that they grow and age. Scrutinizing the consequences of imprison-
ment on people at different moments through their lifespan, and on the
relationship between different generations, this work enriches the schol-
arship about prisons, and, at the same time, takes part in a broader and
indispensable reflection about the human condition nowadays.”
—Pierre Guibentif, Maison des Sciences de l’Homme (MSH), Université
Paris-Saclay, France
“Not quite life-course criminology, not quite family studies, this treat-
ment of ‘generation’ and incarceration covers children’s issues, parenting,
intergenerational transmission, age and aging, and other topics relevant
to our movement through the life cycle and through history. Readers will
appreciate the blend of conceptual, quantitative, and qualitative work,
Praise for Incarceration and Generation, Volume II ix
the diversity in geographic representation, and the coverage of both time-

less problems and current events. This book is an excellent resource for
scholars and for students.”
—Sonja E. Siennick, Florida State University, College of Criminology and
Criminal Justice, USA
“This volume presents original, rich and diverse perspectives on incarcer-

ation and its impacts on different life stages and the broader concept of
generation. Combined, it is a fascinating account of a complex subject
which will add significantly to the academic literature and to our wider
understand of the phenomena involved.”
—Ursula Kilkelly, University College Cork, School of Law, Ireland
Contents
1 Incarceration and Generational Relations—Exploring

a Theoretical and Empirical Field of Research 1
Sílvia Gomes, Maria João Leote de Carvalho,
and Vera Duarte
2 Intergenerational Continuities in Imprisonment:
Findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent
Development 41
Katherine M. Auty, Henriette Bergstrøm,
and David P. Farrington
3 Towards a Holistic Approach to Systemic Child
Participation for Child-Friendly Justice 71
Cédric Foussard and Ha Ryong Jung
4 Victims or Victimizers? An Insight of Imprisoned
Youths in Latin America 107
Ana Safranoff and Antonella Tiravassi
xi
xii Contents
5 Fathering from Prison: Managing Relations

and Reflecting upon Intergenerational Impacts 137
Rafaela Granja
6 Effects of Incarceration on Families in Cameroon
Prisons: Perspectives of Imprisoned Mothers, Minors
and the Elderly 169
Helen Namondo Linonge-Fontebo
7 Incarceration and Intergenerational Family Relations
in Organized Crime 201
Ana Guerreiro, Sílvia Gomes, and Pedro Sousa
8 Lives in Cages: A Media Analysis of Incarceration
Experiences Across Generations on the US-Mexico
Border 227
Jack Mills, Raquel Oliveira, and Silvia Gomes
9 Measuring the Intergenerational Effects
of Incarceration 273
Manudeep Bhuller, Gordon B. Dahl, Katrine V. Løken,
and Magne Mogstad
Index 311
Notes on Contributors
Katherine M. Auty is a Senior Research Associate in the Prisons

Research Centre at the Institute of Criminology, University of
Cambridge. She completed her Ph.D. at the Forensic Psychiatry Research
Unit, Barts and The London School of Medicine, examining the inter-
generational transmission of criminal offending, psychopathy and other
personality disorders using data from the Cambridge Study in Delin-
quent Development. Her current research focuses on understanding
prison culture and its relationship to outcomes for prisoners.
Henriette Bergstrøm is a Senior Lecturer in Criminal Psychology in the
School of Law and Social Sciences at the University of Derby, UK. Henri-
ette’s current research focus is on the development of psychopathy within
a developmental and life-course criminology perspective.
Manudeep Bhuller is an Associate Professor of economics on tenure-
track at the University of Oslo, Norway. He also holds an appointment
as a research fellow in the Research Department at Statistics Norway.
His research interests are in labour economics, economics of education
and economics of crime. Previously, he was a postdoctoral scholar at the
xiii
xiv Notes on Contributors
University of Chicago. He received a Ph.D. from the University of Oslo

in 2014.
Gordon B. Dahl is a Professor of economics at the University of Cali-
fornia, San Diego. He serves as Area Director for Labor Economics
for the CESifo Network and is an associate editor for the American
Economic Review and Economic Inquiry. Dahl’s research interests are
in labour economics and applied microeconomics, including a wide set
of issues that range from how income affects child achievement, to peer
effects among coworkers and family members, to the impact of incarcera-
tion on recidivism and employment, to intergenerational links in welfare
use. He received a Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1998.
Vera Duarte holds a Ph.D. in Sociology by Universidade do Minho
(2011) and is an assistant professor at University Institute of Maia
(ISMAI, Portugal) and a researcher at Interdisciplinary Centre of Social
Sciences (CICS.NOVA, University of Minho, Portugal) and at the
Research Unit in Criminology and Behavioral Sciences (UICCC/ISMAI,
Portugal), where she was the Director until 2020. She has been involved
in teaching and research into the sociology of deviance and crime,
juvenile and gender delinquency.
David P. Farrington, O.B.E., is Emeritus Professor of Psychological
Criminology at the Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University and
Director of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, a 50-
year follow-up of 400 London males. He received the Stockholm Prize
in Criminology in 2013. He was President of the American Society of
Criminology in 1998-99. He is the first and only person to receive the
four major awards of the American Society of Criminology: the Edwin
Sutherland Award in 2002 for outstanding contributions to criminology,
the Sellin-Glueck Award in 1984 for international contributions to crim-
inology, the August Vollmer Award in 2014 for outstanding contribu-
tions to the prevention of delinquency and the Herbert Bloch Award in
2018 for outstanding service contributions to criminology.
Cédric Foussard is an expert on justice for children, working at an
international level. He is currently the Advocacy and Global Learning
Advisor for Terre des Hommes Foundation—Access to Justice program.
Notes on Contributors xv
For more than a decade he was the Director of The International Juve-
nile Justice Observatory, an international not-for-profit organization that
promoted a global approach to child rights, especially for children in
conflict with the law. Here, Foussard led a multidisciplinary team, to
develop research and advocacy strategies, as well as to propose poli-
cies and legislative instruments and to encourage the implementation of
good practices. He has developed a strong juvenile justice network of
more than 10,000 experts from all over the world, and regional think
tanks in Europe, North and Latin America, Asia-Pacific and Africa.
Foussard has organized, as well, numerous international events and
training in collaboration with UN Agencies such as UNODC, UNICEF,
OHCHR and regional bodies like the European Commission, Council
of Europe, Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Foussard is currently
the lead organizer of the World Congresses on Justice for Children which
the last edition “Strengthening justice systems for children: Challenges,
including disengagement from violent extremism”, was impulsed by an
international consortium of organizations focused on children’s rights
and The UNESCO through the Information for All Programme.
Silvia Gomes is currently a Lecturer in Criminology at Nottingham
Trent University (UK) and a Researcher at the Interdisciplinary Center of
Social Sciences (CICS.NOVA, Portugal). She holds a Ph.D. in Sociology
(2013). She is co-coordinating the Thematic Section on Sociology of Law
and Justice of the Portuguese Sociological Association. Author of several
books, book chapters and papers in scientific journals, her main areas
of research are focused on crime and media, prison studies, crime and
ethnicity, social inequalities, intersectional approaches and more recently
on reentry, recidivism and criminal desistance. Her recently co-edited
books are Female Crime and Delinquency in Portugal: In and Out of the
Criminal Justice System (2018, Palgrave) and Prisons, State and Violence
(2019, Springer).
Rafaela Granja holds a Ph.D. in Sociology (2015) and is a researcher
at the Communication and Society Research Centre (CECS), Univer-
sity of Minho, Portugal. Her research explores topics of technological
surveillance of criminalized populations, the interconnections between
xvi Notes on Contributors
family, genetics and crime and reconfigurations of family relation-

ships inside and outside the prison. She has awarded a Grant from
“Scientific Employment Stimulus” (2nd Edition) promoted by the
Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT—Fundação
para a Ciência e Tecnologia), a researcher-centred, highly competitive
scheme, aimed at providing support for the most talented and creative
researchers. Her publications include the books “Genetic surveillance
and crime control: social, cultural and political perspectives” (Rout-
ledge, forthcoming 2021), “Forensic Genetics in the Governance of
Crime” (Palgrave, 2020) and “Modes of Bio-Bordering: The Hidden
(Dis)integration of Europe” (Palgrave, 2020), as well as several scientific
articles in indexed high-impact journals.
Ana Guerreiro is a Ph.D. student in Criminology with a
Fellowship funded by Foundation for Science and Technology
(SFRH/BD/143202/2019) at School of Criminology of the Faculty
of Law, University of Porto, through the CJS—Interdisciplinary Centre
on Crime Justice and Security, Portugal. Invited Lecturer in Criminology
at the University Institute of Maia (ISMAI). Her main research areas
are gender studies, gender-based violence, organized crime and crime
prevention.
Ha Ryong Jung is a human rights Lawyer specializing in children’s
rights and child protection, particularly in the field of justice for chil-
dren that encompass child-friendly justice frameworks and safeguards
for children in contact with the law. He has focused on the Southeast
Asian region for the past few years, coordinating the National Launch
of the UN Global Study on Children Deprived of Liberty in Cambodia,
empowering children and youth and reinforcing laws and procedures on
access to justice and protection for children. He holds a JD from Harvard
Law School.
Maria João Leote de Carvalho is a researcher at the Interdisciplinary
Centre of Social Sciences (CICS.NOVA), School of Social Sciences and
Humanities, from the Universidade NOVA de Lisboa. She holds a Ph.D.
in Sociology (FCSH-UNL), and currently she is conducting Postdoctoral
research on youth justice and young adult criminal law regime with the
Notes on Contributors xvii
support of FCT (Ref. SFRH/BPD/116119/2016). She has been involved

in research and teaching in the fields of sociology of deviance, crime and
violence and children and youth studies. She is Scientific Consultant at
the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, Working Group on Child Poverty
from the EAPN-Portugal and member of the Child-Friendly Justice—
European Network. In 2016, she was appointed as Counselor to the
National Council of the National Commission for the Promotion of the
Rights and Protection of Children and Young People, Portugal.
Helen Namondo Linonge-Fontebo is a Senior Lecturer in the Depart-
ment of Women and Gender Studies and Secretary General in the
Faculty of Social and Management Sciences, University of Buea,
Cameroon. She earned a Doctor of Literature and Philosophy in Soci-
ology, from the University of South Africa, South Africa and holds a
Master’s degree in Women and Gender studies and a B.Sc. Double
Major degree in Women’s Studies and Law from the University of Buea,
Cameroon. She is an alumnus of the Study of the United States Institute
(SUSI) on Religious Pluralism and Public Presence from the University of
California, Santa Barbara. Her major research interests are Gender, Law,
human rights, sexuality and feminist theory. She has published a book,
several articles and book chapters both in national and international
journals.
Katrine V. Løken is Professor of Economics at the Norwegian School
of Economics. Løken’s research interests include labour economics and
applied econometrics. Her main focus is on the long-term effects of early
investments in childhood and more recently she has worked on topics
related to crime, incarceration and victimization. She received a Starting
Grant in 2017 from the European Research Council on “Criminality,
Victimization and Social Interactions”. She is a co-editor of the Review
of Economic Studies. She received a Ph.D. from the University of Bergen
in 2010.
Jack Mills is currently a Ph.D. Student at Florida State University
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice. He received bachelor’s
xviii Notes on Contributors
degrees in criminology and political science from Florida State Univer-

sity. His developing areas of research are control and consensus, courts,
hate and bias, immigration, media studies and translational criminology.
Magne Mogstad is the Gary S. Becker Professor in Economics at the
University of Chicago. He serves as the Director of the Ronzetti Initia-
tive for the Study of Labor Markets at the Becker Friedman Institute
and is a co-editor of the Journal of Political Economy. Mogstad’s research
is motivated by the broad question of how to address market failures
and equalize opportunities. He is a recipient of the 2020 Sherwin Rosen
Prize, the 2017 IZA Young Labor Economist Award and the 2015 Alfred
P. Sloan Foundation Fellowship. He received a Ph.D. from the University
of Oslo in 2008.
Raquel Oliveira is currently a Lecturer at the University of the West
of England, UK. She holds a Ph.D. in Criminology and Criminal
Justice from Florida State University (2020) that she completed with
the support of a Fulbright scholarship and a Doctoral Scholarship from
the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT). Raquel
is a member of the Analyses and Metric Validation Research Group
(CNPQ—UNESP, Brazil—2012) and of the Interdisciplinary Center
of Social Sciences (CICS.NOVA). Her main research interests include
life-course criminology, psycho-bio-social correlates of crime and violent
offending.
Ana Safranoff holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from the Pompeu Fabra
University. She is currently a researcher at the National Council for
Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET, Argentina), based at
Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos sobre Inseguridad y Violencia
(CELIV/UNTREF). After finishing her doctoral thesis, her research has
been focused on the study of different aspects of gender and social
inequalities in the prison environment, as well as in the context of
couples. These investigations resulted in articles published in interna-
tional academic journals, such as Women Criminal Justice, Violence Against
Women and the European Journal of Criminology. She has also partici-
pated in technical reports on these topics for international organizations,
such as IDB, UNICEF, ILO and Red Cross.
Notes on Contributors xix
Pedro Sousa holds a Ph.D. in Economics from ISEG (University of

Lisbon), Currently he is a Professor at the Faculty of Law and the School
of Criminology of the University of Porto. He is Director of the School of
Criminology and is affiliated with the Interdisciplinary Research Center
on Crime, Justice and Security (CJS), Portugal. His research activity is
carried out around economic and financial crimes, costs of crime, orga-
nized crime, criminal networks and evaluation of interventions in the
justice system. The outcomes of this research have been presented at
conferences and published in international scientific journals, in books
and in book chapters.
Antonella Tiravassi is a Sociologist and a Professor of Sociology at the
University of Buenos Aires, Argentina. She graduated with an interna-
tional specialization in Health and Human Rights from the University
of Geneva. She is now applying for a Master’s Degree in International
Political Sociology at UNTREF (University of Tres de Febrero) and her
thesis focuses on the ordeals of the trajectory of immigrant women in
prison. She has worked for international organisms such as IADB (Inter-
American Development Bank) and the European Community Founda-
tion Friedrich Ebert (FES). She has also been coordinating projects and
designing indicators for monitoring and evaluating social programs in
different government agencies such as the Ministry of Social Develop-
ment, (SIEMPRO-SISFAM) and in the private sector (YPF Founda-
tion). She is an academic researcher for the CELIV-UNTREF in topics
regarding justice, violence and gender. At the moment, she is working on
gender and diversity politics in different organisms such as ELA, Banco
Nación Argentina, ILO and IADB.
List of Figures
Chapter 7
Fig. 1 Organized crime group 1 217
Fig. 2 Organized crime group 2 218
Chapter 9
Fig. 1 Incarceration rates in the US, Western Europe,
and Norway, 1980–2018 (Notes The Western European
countries used to construct the population-weighted
average include Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK. Source: World Prison
Brief, Institute for Criminal Policy Research) 274
xxi
xxii List of Figures
Fig. 2 Incarceration Rates and GDP per Capita (Notes Sample

consists of 160 countries with population greater
than 0.5 million and with available data on incarceration
and GDP. Incarceration rates and GDP are for the latest
available year. GDP per capita is adjusted for purchasing
power parity (PPP) and reported in 2010 US dollars.
The Western European countries used to construct
a population-weighted average are Austria, Belgium,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland,
Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway,
Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and, the UK.
Sources: World Prison Brief, Institute for Criminal
Policy Research; World Economic Outlook, International
Monetary Fund; World Bank) 275
Fig. 3 First-stage graph of incarceration on judge stringency
2020 Notes This figure is taken from Bhuller et al. [2020],
page 1290. The probability of incarceration is plotted
on the right Y-axis against leave-out mean judge stringency
of the assigned judge, shown along the X-axis. The plotted
values are mean-standardized residuals from regressions
on court by year interacted fixed effects, and a set
of demographic and crime type control variables. The
solid line shows a local linear regression of incarceration
on judge stringency. Dashed lines show 90% confidence
intervals. The histogram shows the density of judge
stringency along the left Y-axis [top and bottom 2%
excluded]) 300
List of Tables
Chapter 2
Table 1 Imprisoned fathers versus imprisoned sons 58
Table 2 Parameter estimates for hierarchical logistic regression
models predicting imprisoned G2 males (N = 392) 59
Table 3 Mediation analysis 61
Chapter 4
Table 1 Factors associated with the likelihood of men deprived
of liberty in Latin America having been beaten
during their stay at the police station. Main effects.
Logistic regression 123
Table 2 Factors associated with the likelihood of men deprived
of their liberty in Latin America being beaten
during the past six months in prison. Main effects.
Logistic regression 124
Chapter 5
Table 1 Prisoners’ characterization 148
xxiii
xxiv List of Tables
Chapter 7
Table 1 Sociodemographics of the accused individuals (N = 278) 214
Table 2 Family ties inside organized crime groups (N = 100) 216
Table 3 Sentencing outcomes (N = 278) 220
Chapter 8
Table 1 Frequency count per theme resulting from the thematic
analysis of 302 news articles 239
Chapter 9
Table 1 Studies estimating the causal effects of parental
incarceration using panel data designs 290
Table 2 Studies estimating the causal effects of parental
incarceration using random judge designs 296
1
Incarceration and Generational
Relations—Exploring a Theoretical
and Empirical Field of Research
Sílvia Gomes, Maria João Leote de Carvalho,
and Vera Duarte
Incarceration and Generation: Challenging Generational Relations is the

second volume of a two-book series around the intersections between
incarceration and generation. The present volume presents and debates
S. Gomes (B)
Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
e-mail: silvia.damotagomes@ntu.ac.uk
M. J. L. de Carvalho
CICS.NOVA - Interdisciplinary Centre of Social Sciences, School of Social
Sciences and Humanities, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa (NOVA FCSH),
Lisbon, Portugal
e-mail: mjleotec@sapo.pt
V. Duarte
University Institute of Maia—ISMAI, Maia, Portugal
e-mail: vduarte@ismai.pt
S. Gomes · V. Duarte
CICS.NOVA - Interdisciplinary Centre of Social Sciences, School of Social
Sciences and Humanities, Lisbon, Portugal
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1
Switzerland AG 2022
S. Gomes et al. (eds.), Incarceration and Generation, Volume II,
Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82276-7_1
2 S. Gomes et al.
key intergenerational relations issues within incarceration. The first

volume, entitled Incarceration and Generation: Multiple Faces of Confine-
ment, explores the experiences, dynamics, cultures, interventions and
impacts of incarceration in various generations, from childhood to
adulthood and older age.
Our main goal with these two volumes is to present different perspec-
tives on the complex nature of the multiple intersections between
incarceration and generation through a variety of chapters that cover
different geographic judicial and administrative contexts of incarcera-
tion, as well as different areas of research in law and social sciences. This
makes it possible to identify, analyse and debate, from multiple angles,
the social construction of the term generation within the framework of
different justice policies and prison practices. Without exhausting all the
possible connections between incarceration and generation, the different
perspectives brought to these volumes help substantiate the importance
of acknowledging generation as a key concept in incarceration studies,
encouraging academics to reflect on the relevance of considering this
domain as a distinct field of research.
The concepts of incarceration and generation have been presented and
discussed in the first volume (see Gomes et al., 2021, volume I). We
argued for the need to broaden the concept of incarceration to include
all its forms, given the renewed complexity of the social issues related
to the measures involving deprivation of liberty worldwide (Bosworth,
2017; Fassin, 2011, 2017). This broader concept encompasses all forms
of the so-called ‘traditional’ coercive institutional confinement, such as
prisons, jails and juvenile detention centres, and other forms of admin-
istrative and institutional imprisonment. With regard to the concept of
generation, we explored the different categories and meanings associated
with the term–as a principle of kinship descent, as a cohort, as a life
stage and as a historical period (Ketzer, 1983). We argued that generation
should not be limited to being defined as a cohort or using a life course
approach. We understand generations as a social construction, and, as
such, we include in this two-book series the plurality of possible mean-
ings of this concept. In the first volume, we explored generation as a life
stage. In this second volume, we widen the discussion to include chapters
that focus on generation as a principle of kinship descent–particularly to
1 Incarceration and Generational Relations—Exploring … 3
explore issues relating to family and incarceration–and also as a cohort

and as a historical period (see Kertzer, 1983, p. 126).
Within the scope of this second volume, the focus is placed on
the challenges of generational relations in incarceration. The present
chapter explores aspects of the intersections between incarceration and
generation(s). In that context, it focuses on how intragenerational and
intergenerational relations can operate in confinement and/or how they
could impact confinement experiences. It does so, firstly, by expanding
the conceptual discussion around generation, framing it within the scope
of crime studies literature, particularly on life course and family studies,
and, secondly, by providing a brief state-of-the-art review of the liter-
ature on the intersections of incarceration and generational relations.
This framework provides structure and guidance to the setting of the
entire volume’s rationale, which is to examine generational relations in
incarceration, with chapters focusing particularly on intergenerational
continuities in imprisonment, intergenerational justice and citizenship,
the impacts of incarceration on multiple generations and within families
and media representations of the intergenerationality of incarceration.
At the end, the potential of incarceration and generation studies as an
independent field of research is discussed.
1 Expanding the Conceptual Delimitation

of Generation: Intergenerational
and Intragenerational Challenges
Bristow (2016) affirms ‘the concept of generation denotes the biological
reality of being, the historical reality of living, and the epistemological
problem of knowing’ (2016, p. 1). These diverse views of generation
have been discussed by many authors across different fields of study.
Kertzer (1983) proposed four categories to aggregate the concept and
its different meanings: (1) generation as a principle of kinship descent–
mostly used by anthropologists to encompass a set of kinship relations in
a particular community, while demographers use it as a measure to iden-
tify the length of a generation; (2) generation as a cohort–used mostly in
the work of demographers to identify the succession of people moving
4 S. Gomes et al.
though the age strata; (3) generation as a life stage–as used in relation to
the opposition between younger and older generations, especially when
trying to show a generational conflict; and (4) generation as a historical
period–used more commonly in history, but also in life course crimi-
nology, in the sense that a generation can cover a wide range of cohorts,
often linked to specific events (Kertzer, 1983, p. 126).
Although these categories may appear circumscribed and exclusive,
there are several limits to each one of them individually (see Gomes et al.,
2021, volume 1), and they are not completely exclusive. In Elder’s defini-
tion of generation, we can see that generation as a historical period and
as kinship can be associated under the same theoretical and analytical
approach. Based on his longitudinal studies of child and adult devel-
opment, Elder (1974, 1985, 2001) formulated a life course perspective
positing the process through which social and historical contexts, partic-
ularly during childhood and adolescence, affect the trajectory of an
individual’s development through the lifespan. At the same time, this
author observes that life course studies, at least the initial ones, focused
on the family context, such as kinship ties, social transmission, inter-
generational relations, the life cycle in which one generation reproduces
another and generational status, while most recent studies focus on
themes such as lives and times, the timing of linked lives and human
agency (Elder, 2001, pp. 16–17). As such, several key concepts in the
fields of life course and family studies must be discussed so that we
can set the definition, content and boundaries of generational relations,
both intergenerational and intragenerational, particularly in social crime
studies.
Life course: The life course perspective seeks to relate the social
meaning of age throughout the life cycle, the intergenerational trans-
mission of social patterns and the effects of social history and social
structure on the study of human behaviour over time (Elder, 1992).
As such, this perspective plays an important role in helping to under-
stand the intergenerational impacts of crime and delinquent behaviour as
well as of incarceration. In this section, this perspective will be presented
in order to develop the framework for the concepts mentioned above,
both by taking into consideration the fact that a social event may affect
individuals differently in different stages of their lives–childhood or
adulthood–and by exploring the family context, such as kinship ties and

social transmission.
Elder (1992, 2001) incorporates macro elements in his analysis of the
trajectories and transitions of the behaviour of individuals throughout
their life cycle. The author argues that there are fundamental mechanisms
through which the social environment changes and trajectories influence
the cause and substance of human lives (Elder, 2001, pp. 5–7). These
mechanisms are identified as ‘lives and historical times’, ‘social timing’,
‘linked lives’ and ‘human agency’. Depending on the time when one was
born, especially in such volatile and changing societies, one might be
exposed to different historical worlds, with their own constraints and
options. Therefore, individual life trajectories may reflect these different
historical times. The social meanings of age also deserve special attention,
since they bring a temporal and age perspective to the social events that
are experienced (such as giving birth) and the roles that are performed
(such as being a mother or a son). Social timing is related to the inci-
dence, duration and sequence of roles and to age-relevant expectations
and beliefs. According to the life stage principle, the personal impact of
any change depends on where individuals are in their lives at the time
of the change. Therefore, the most central principle in the study of life
trajectories is the notion of interdependent lives. Individuals are generally
embedded in social relationships with relatives and friends throughout
the life cycle. More broadly, the principle of interdependent lives refers
to the interaction between the individuals and their social world–family,
friends and co-workers–throughout the life cycle. To a large extent,
macro-historical transformations are experienced by individuals through
these micro-institutional worlds. Finally, human agency refers to the fact
that individuals plan their lives and make decisions that build their life
trajectory within the constraints of their world (Clausen, 1993).
Part of the relevance of this approach lies in the dynamic perspective
of understanding how behaviour, such as deviant or criminal behaviour,
develops over time and how it is systematically influenced by events in
different age groups that occur over the lifespan (Piquero & Mazerolle,
2001). Although events in a certain life stage, such as childhood, might
be more prominent and impactful in an individual’s life (Elder, 2001;
6 S. Gomes et al.
Ryder, 1965), investigation has established the existence of wide varia-

tions in the behaviour of adolescents and adults who committed crimes.
These variations are not merely explained by childhood trends. Further-
more, these changes in adult criminality appear to be structured by social
transitions and adult life events in the lifespan (Rutter et al., 1990;
Sampson & Laub, 1990), underscoring the usefulness of the life course
perspective (Sampson & Laub, 2001, pp. 31–32). For example, Moffit
(1993, 1997) identified two groups of offenders: ‘adolescent-limited’
and ‘life-course persisters’. Adolescent-limited offenders engage in delin-
quent acts during adolescence (and sometimes early adulthood) as a
result of their frustration in wanting and not being able to legitimately
obtain adult privileges, resources and responsibilities. In this situation,
adolescent-limited offenders are swayed by the delinquent activity of
their peers. Life-course persisters are antisocial in their behaviour as chil-
dren, engage in delinquent acts at an early age, and progress to more
serious forms of criminal involvement over time (Moffit, 1997).
This observation of nuances and variation of behaviour in a particular
age group or life stage throughout the lifespan overwhelmingly supports
an intragenerational analysis of (deviant and criminal) behaviour.
However, a generational perspective also benefits from understanding
events when linking age groups or life stages, by incorporating aspects
such as family ties or the socialisation process. An individual’s age is one
of the most common predictors of differences in attitudes and behaviours
(Farrington, 1986; Loeber & Farrington, 2014; Ulmer & Steffensmeier,
2014), but studies have also been showing that the behaviour of parents
predicts the behaviour of their children (Farrington et al., 1996; Huebner
& Gustafson, 2007). In fact, intergenerational transmission refers to the
association between a parent’s behaviour and the children’s behaviour
(van Dijk et al., 2019). As such, family appears here as a crucial element
in intergenerational studies–a fact that is also acknowledged by the life
course perspective (Elder, 2001).
Family: The relationship between family and delinquent and crim-
inal behaviour, which has impacted the intergenerational studies on
incarceration, has been extensively studied across different fields (Blok-
land & Nieuwbeerta, 2005; Fagan & Wexler, 1987; Farrington, 2011;
Huizinga et al., 2003; Laub & Sampson, 2003; LeBlanc & Fréchette,
1989; Seydlitz, 2016a, 2016b; Stephen, 2006; Tremblay et al., 2003;

Thornberry, 2016, 2020; Wells & Rankin, 1991). Many studies have
focused on the family’s impacts during childhood and adolescence, since
these are key developmental stages in the life course (Elder, 2001; Ryder,
1965).
Family is the main institution of informal social control, whose action
is significant in maintaining the social bond between the individual and
society (Shorter, 1975). First, it is important to discuss the transmis-
sion of social values and norms within the family and to understand
whether family values go in the direction of social conformity (Savage,
2014). Family is seen as the primary cultural context, in which children
acquire, internalise and reconstruct normative guidelines and definitions
that meet social conformity. But children do not merely internalise the
external adult culture. Rather, they become a part of adult culture, there-
fore contributing to its (re)production through their negotiations with
adults, as well as a part of the cultures of their peers, in a fragmented
puzzle of social and educational references (Corsaro ). Childhood studies
increasingly show how children are contributing to their own socialisa-
tion and, in consequence, to the edification of other older generations
and society as a whole (James & Prout, 1990; Mayall, 2002; Wyness,
2006). Therefore, children are currently seen as an active part in building
society, by participating in a time and space in which they increasingly
find themselves away from the close supervision of the family (Almeida,
2009; Carvalho, 2013). In this process, other factors (socioeconomic,
cultural, religious and race-related, among others) also intervene, influ-
encing family interactions, relations and practices by which social control
is exercised (Leiber et al., 2009). However, this can happen in several
different directions. Family may constitute one of the main sources of
the social non-conformity of the younger generations that could ulti-
mately result in the enforcement of measures involving deprivation of
liberty (Mucchielli, 2001). Positive relationships among family members,
including children, could be shaped towards deviant and criminal models
created by parents or other family members. From this perspective,
some family dimensions are decisive to explain child and youth deviant
behaviour (Buist et al., 2020). Often, the family structure and the inter-
action within the family sphere, namely in the form of poor quality
8 S. Gomes et al.
of interaction between parents and children and deficient exercise of

effective parental supervision, are predictors of delinquency (Apel &
Kaukinen, 2008; Cusson, 2006; Mucchielli, 2001; Spohn & Kurtz,
2011).
Secondly, we must understand the nature, frequency and intensity
of the social control that the family exerts over its members, especially
the younger ones. This control is embodied in its structure and internal
organisation, established ties and the nature of the relationships between
its members (parental supervision and educational discipline; parental
conflicts; parent–child relationships, communication and intergenera-
tional relations) (Rankin & Wells, 2016; Seydlitz, 2016a; Yoder et al,
2016). Family is the context in which the necessary skills for social action
begin to be produced (Ariès, 1973; Blöss, 1997; Singly, 1991). There
are action strategies that are only defined in the relationship between
family members, which determine their subsequent evolution (LeBlanc
& Janosz, 2002; Scales et al., 2004; Seaton & Taylor, 2003). The exis-
tence of family references proves to be decisive in the evolution of any
individual trajectory (see Linonge-Fontebo, 2021, volume II).
The importance of the family network in accessing structures of
opportunities as well as differentiated lifestyles is a relevant factor that
has been widely documented in the scientific literature on crime, delin-
quency and incarceration (Arditti et al., 2003; Besemer et al., 2018;
Elliot & Reid, 2019; Siegel & Luther, 2019; Luther, 2015; Murray &
Farrington, 2005; Turney & Wilderman, 2013).
New perspectives on the diversity and complexity of familiar groups
point to a reformulation of concepts and to different readings on social
reality (Goody, 2001; Kellerhals et al., 1989). The privatisation and the
deinstitutionalisation of family relations across the world are multidi-
mensional realities (Wall & Amâncio, 2007; Newman, 2008; Naldini,
2017). The spaces for socialisation are constantly evolving and bear no
resemblance to the ones where the older generations grew up. Each
family stands out as one of the privileged places for the social construc-
tion of reality in its dimensions of physical, relational and symbolic
space, with its own trajectory, involving different strategies of rupture
and continuity through time (Saraceno, 2003; see Granja, 2021, volume
II). Family trajectories through different generations must be observed as
a product of particular combinations of the encompassing structures with

strategic, legitimate opportunities, from which processes of social interac-
tion result. It is not just that we are observing a bigger social and cultural
diversity in families; with increasing household changes, individuals are
experiencing a wide variety of concurrent and more complex family and
generational relationships through the life course (Segalen & Martial,
2019; Wall et al., 2018). There is greater recognition of the diversity of
family structures and models, since, as Williams (2004) defends,
Over our lifetimes many of us will cohabit, marry, separate, parent

on our own, or do all of these. Our family support networks may
well include parents and step-parents, children, close friends, same-sex
partners, ex-partners or ex-sons- and daughters-in-law. There is greater
acknowledgement of the diversity of living arrangements and family
forms. Other social changes have altered the contours of family lives
and personal relationships: more mothers work, we are an ageing society,
more people live on their own, and global migration means that family
commitments cross continents. (Williams, 2004, p. 11)
The emergence of forms of family (re)composition gives greater visibility

to the role of kinship networks (Razy & Baby-Collin, 2011), which,
along with the father and mother, occupy a prominent place in many
domestic groups. In some cases, they appear abruptly, with no space for
the integration of new relationships of authority or the reconstitution of
broken affections. Literature shows that the family’s experience, i.e., the
quality of the family relationships that are established, is more impor-
tant than the structure of the family (Spohn & Kurtz, 2011; Thornberry,
2016, 2020).
The problematisation of family ties, the (in)dependence and
autonomy of the members of the family, especially women and children,
and more recently, the elderly, as more vulnerable groups, underpinned
new approaches in parallel with those adopted with regard to women
(Mayall, 2002). While, on the one hand, families suffer structural
constraints that shape them and affect their internal dynamics and their
relationship with the outside, on the other hand, to a certain extent, they
also have an autonomy that will lead them, even when subject to similar
social conditions, to present different modes of response to situations.
10 S. Gomes et al.
The notion of family mobilises the relational aspect, which is essen-

tial in understanding how formal control entails the regulation of this
function when someone is placed under measures involving depriva-
tion of liberty (Carvalho, 2015). Each life trajectory is intersected by
other lives, inscribed in a transversal framework of interdependent rela-
tionships–following the concept of linked lives presented above (Elder,
2001)–that call for broader indicators at the level of the family and socia-
bility networks. Thus, institutions of social control are faced with a range
of situations concerning families to which it is necessary to respond.
There is an opening of the family context, an approximation between
what belongs to the public and the private spheres, with a marked blur-
ring of boundaries between one and the other. This is more relevant in
a time of global mass displacement and migrations. Worldwide, millions
of families, individuals from all generations, are on the move hoping
for a better life. Family remains a major driver of migration, such as in
the cases of family reunification, marriage between national citizens and
immigrants or of these with foreigners living abroad, or even regarding
the international adoption of children. In this sense, as Razy and Baby-
Collin (2011) argue, it is no longer possible to conceive the phenomenon
of migration in spatially and temporally dichotomous terms, since the
migrant social actors are no longer just here or just there, enclosed
by specific borders, but simultaneously here and there. This perspec-
tive moves towards the consideration of a dynamic approach, that of a
‘transnational family’ (Razy & Baby-Collin, 2011). Indeed, it is neces-
sary to take into account new forms of making and breaking families, of
recomposing their ties in a time of intense individual mobility as well as
of a growing digitalisation of society.
2 The Intersection of Incarceration

and Generational Relations: Theoretical
and Empirical Studies
The literature that demarcates the conceptual and analytical bound-
aries of generational, intergenerational and intragenerational relations,
particularly in crime studies, which we have explored so far, helps to

frame and understand how intragenerational and intergenerational rela-
tions can impact incarceration experiences. This section provides a brief
state-of-the-art review of the literature on the intersections of incarcera-
tion and generational relations, covering longitudinal studies on crime,
delinquency and incarceration as well as studies that explore the intergen-
erational impacts and challenges of incarceration in families, especially
for incarcerated parents and children with incarcerated parents.
There is a wide range of relevant longitudinal studies on delinquency,
crime and incarceration. In the USA, Sheldon Glueck and Eleanor
Glueck can be considered pioneers, with over 30 years of research on
delinquency (1959). In the UK, Donald West, in 1961, and later David
Farrington, from 1969 onward, conducted longitudinal studies through
the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Without exhausting
all the references in this field, the longitudinal studies that stand out as
being the most significant are the Tüningen Criminal Behaviour Devel-
opment Study, by Kerner (in 1965); the Houston Longitudinal Study,
by Kaplan (in 1971); the Montreal Two-Samples Longitudinal Study,
by LeBlanc (in 1974); the Montreal Longitudinal and Experimental
Study, by Tremblay and colleagues (in 1984); the Seattle Social Devel-
opment Project, by Hawkins and colleagues (in 1985); the Rochester
Youth Development Study, by Thornberry and colleagues (in 1986); the
Denver Youth Study, by Huizinga and colleagues (in 1988); the Pitts-
burgh Youth Study, by Loeber et al. (in 1988); the Project on Human
Development in Chicago Neighbourhoods, by Sampson and Laub (in
1995); the Zurich Project of the Social Development of Children, by
Eisner (in 2003); the Netherlands-based Criminal Career and Life-course
Study, by Nieuwbeerta and colleagues (in 2009); and the Stockholm Life
Course Project, by Sarnecki and Carlsson (in 2010).
Drawing on these studies and many more, much has been discussed on
the intergenerational challenges of crime, delinquency and incarceration.
For instance, the number of studies on intergenerational transmission of
delinquent behaviour is relatively small but has grown considerably in
the last few years in several countries (Eichelsheim & Van de Weijer,
2018; Spapens & Moors, 2020). Research on the intergenerational
transmission of violence demonstrates that parental behaviour is very
12 S. Gomes et al.
important for predicting the criminal behaviour of children (Besemer,

2012; Besemer & Dennison, 2018; Besemer & Farrington, 2012; Foster
& Hagan, 2009, 2015; Thornberry, 2020) and that fathers are the
most important relative for this prediction (e.g., Farrington et al., 1996;
Hirschi, 1969). Farrington (2011) described six explanations for the
intergenerational transmission of criminal behaviour: intergenerational
exposure to multiple risk factors, environmental risk factors, teaching
and co-offending, genetic mechanisms, assortative mating, and official
bias from the justice system. These appear to be empirically intertwined,
and a combination of these mechanisms can explain intergenerational
transmission. Additionally, within organised crime networks, families
seem to play an important role in the intergenerational transmission of
violence and criminal behaviour, particularly because of how kinship ties
are built around keen trust relations. Nonetheless, generational studies
of families involved in organised crime are almost non-existent (see
exceptions Spapens & Moors, 2020; Guerreiro et al., 2021, volume II).
In the same way as for the intergenerational transmission of crim-
inal behaviour, studies have been showing that being incarcerated is an
important life event, much like having a convicted parent is a risk factor
for criminality and conviction among children (see Auty et al., 2021,
volume II; Besemer & Farrington, 2012; Murray & Farrington, 2005;
Murray et al., 2012b; Wildeman & Andersen, 2017; Young et al., 2020).
However, this transmission suffers gender variations (Farrington et al.,
1996; Besemer et al, 2016; Sullivan, 2019). Drawing on the Cambridge
Study in Delinquent Development, Farrington et al. (1996) found stronger
links between criminal behaviour between and within generations in
same-gender relationships compared with opposite-gender relationships.
Besemer et al. (2016) investigated intergenerational transmission in
Sweden by using data from three generations of the Stockholm Life
Course Project and by employing the group-based trajectory method-
ology. Overall, authors found that children of convicted fathers are about
two times more likely to be convicted than children of non-convicted
fathers, and children of convicted mothers are about 2.6 times more
likely to be convicted themselves. This ratio for intergenerational trans-
mission is similar to the one found in other countries, such as England
(Farrington et al., 2009), the Netherlands (Bijleveld & Wijkman, 2009)
and the USA (Farrington et al, 2001; Piquero, 2008; Thornberry, 2009;
Thornberry et al., 2009). The results demonstrate a strong intergenera-
tional transmission of criminal behaviour, but offspring convictions are
related to the fact that fathers have a conviction rather than to what the
trajectory of their conviction looks like (Besemer et al., 2016).
According to Kjellstrand et al. (2019), with nearly three million minor
children experiencing parental incarceration on any given day, interest
in the impact of this incarceration on children has intensified. In fact,
parental incarceration has been associated with long-term harm to chil-
dren (Besemer & Dennison, 2018). Several studies have been assessing
the intergenerational consequences of parental incarceration (Sullivan,
2019), suggesting it has a detrimental impact on behavioural, educa-
tional and health outcomes for children (Haskins et al., 2018; Murray
et al., 2012a), such as infant mortality, externalisation of behavioural
problems, mental health concerns, educational and developmental chal-
lenges and relationship problems (Kjellstrand et al., 2019; Murray &
Farrington, 2005; Siegel & Luther, 2019). Parenting stress caused by
family imprisonment can impact the ability of caregivers to offer a
secure parent–child relationship after a close family member is incarcer-
ated (Besemer & Dennison, 2018; see Auty et al., 2021, volume II).
The children of prisoners are a highly vulnerable group with multiple
risk factors, adverse childhood experiences and a greater likelihood of
adverse outcomes in comparison with their peers (Murray & Farrington,
2005; Murray et al., 2012a; Siegel & Luther, 2019). Among the risk
factors, we might include an increased risk of coming in contact
with child protective services (Johnson & Waldfogel, 2002), housing
insecurity (Wildeman, 2014), stigma (Comfort, 2007), homelessness
(Wildeman, 2014) and health issues (Turney, 2014; Wildeman et al.,
2018). We might also include poor educational outcomes for children,
as studies show that parental incarceration affects academic performance
(Hagan & Foster, 2012; Haskins, 2016; Turney & Haskins, 2014) and
increases behavioural problems (Haskins, 2015; Turney & Wildeman,
2015). On this matter, McCauley (2020) explored the effect of parental
incarceration on both academic and non-academic outcomes in high
school. The author concluded that maternal and paternal incarceration
impacted academic and non-academic outcomes differently, as the first
14 S. Gomes et al.
affected behavioural outcomes (such as fighting and truancy) and the

second affected behavioural, connectedness and disciplinary outcomes.
A systematic review of the literature was conducted by Murray et al.
(2012b) to summarise the available empirical evidence on the asso-
ciations between parental incarceration and the children’s subsequent
antisocial behaviour, mental health problems, drug use and educational
performance difficulties. According to the authors, the most rigorous
studies showed that parental incarceration is associated with a higher
risk of children displaying antisocial behaviour, but not mental health
problems, drug use or poor educational performance.
Furthermore, the impact of parental incarceration goes beyond a
certain life stage, such as childhood, and is not limited to short-term
consequences in childhood and adolescence (Gaston, 2016). There-
fore, parental incarceration might impact individuals throughout their
lifespan. Gaston (2016) and Siegal et al. (2021) examined the adult
children’s views of the long-term effects of parental incarceration and
discussed how this situation continued to shape their transition to
adulthood. Gaston (2016) shows that parental incarceration is linked
with long-term mental health problems, such as depressive symptoms,
for some offspring, but only for certain subgroups. Luther (2015), on
the other hand, provides insight from interviews with college students
and shows how social support from caring adults, such as caregivers,
incarcerated parents, grandparents, older siblings, teachers and coaches,
promoted resilience and helped facilitate success in light of parental
criminality and incarceration. Therefore, as mentioned in the previous
section, the quality of relations exercised by parents and caregivers plays
an important role in understanding childhood experiences.
If we acknowledge the fact that there is an overrepresentation of
certain social groups in incarceration (Waquant, 2000; Western & Pettit,
2010; Turney, 2015), then we will understand the extent of the impact
of incarceration across the generations in already vulnerable popula-
tions, which creates an intergenerational cycle of poverty and social
inequalities (Western, 2018). For instance, Quilty et al. (2004) argued
that indigenous children are much more likely to experience parental
incarceration than non-indigenous children in Australia. Elliot and Reid
(2019) developed the concept of family criminalisation to discuss the
intergenerational impact of criminalisation and incarceration in low-

income Black American families. Authors show that Black mothers
define their parenting strategies based on both the fear of having their
children targeted and criminalised and the fear of being criminalised
themselves as bad mothers, leading to eventually losing their parenting
rights.
Therefore, not only children, but entire families can experience
multiple difficulties after parental incarceration, such as traumatic sepa-
ration, emotional stress, loneliness, stigma, unstable childcare arrange-
ments, strained parenting, reduced income, home, school and neigh-
bourhood moves and concerns about the children’s loss of involvement
with their incarcerated parent (Arditti et al., 2003; Fowler et al., 2017;
Murray et al., 2012b). Parents generally perceive their incarceration as
negatively impacting their children and family in multiple ways, and
express concern about their children’s well-being (Granja, 2017; Correa
et al., 2020; see Granja, 2021, volume II).
Another important reality in the discussion of the intergenerational
consequences of incarceration is the situation of incarcerated immigrants
and their families. This area of research is not being fully explored,
as literature on the generational consequences of incarceration focuses
mostly on the penal system. Coercive methods of deterrence, such as
immigration detention centres, have been, for centuries, a central instru-
ment used by States to protect their borders and control and regulate
the entry of foreign citizens into their territories (Kronick et al., 2018).
The rate of migrant individuals, including children, and families held
in detention has increased significantly in recent years and became a
global issue (see Ballesteros, 2021, volume I; Gonzalez & Patler, 2020;
see Ruiz Fincias, 2021, volume I; Mills et al., 2021, volume II). Immi-
gration detention has a variety of collateral consequences for individuals
and their families. However, there are few studies examining the experi-
ences of immigrants and their families as they go through the process
of being in contact with immigration detention (Patler & Gonzalez,
2020; see Ballesteros, 2021, volume I). Drawing on interviews conducted
with detained parents, non-detained spouses/partners and their school-
age children, Gonzalez and Patler (2020) show that parental immigration
detention can have intergenerational consequences for children, as their
16 S. Gomes et al.
academic outcomes are impacted by trauma, stigma and the strain of

parental incarceration. To better illustrate the intergenerational chal-
lenges of this particular group, the authors suggest the use of the concept
of “compound vulnerability” to address the simultaneous experience of
parental incarceration associated with the uncertainty of immigration
legal processes that can result in deportation and permanent family
separation (Patler & Gonzalez, 2020).
Despite the growing body of literature addressing the intergenera-
tional impact and challenges of incarceration, authors have been calling
for more research to examine the differential effects of parental incar-
ceration and the heterogeneity of outcomes for children (Murray et al.,
2012b; Kjellstrand et al., 2019; see Bhuller et al., 2021, volume II).
And not just more research, but more compelling research within the
scope of intergenerational studies (Branje et al., 2020; Thornberry, 2009,
2020). For instance, Thornberry (2009) defends that intergenerational
studies should comply with four criteria: (1) they should utilise prospec-
tive data on the parents’ generation and the children’s involvement in
deviant behaviour; (2) the measures of antisocial behaviour should be
as independent as possible and based on different reporters; (3) there
should be comparable measures of the parents’ and the children’s anti-
social behaviour encompassing the same ages or developmental stages
in life; (4) studies should also have prospective data on the life-course
development of parents to identify mediating factors that impact inter-
generational continuity or discontinuity in antisocial behaviour. These
critical criteria of intergenerational studies differentiate them from longi-
tudinal studies (Thornberry, 2009). Whereas longitudinal studies focus
on the concurrent relationship between the parent’s antisocial behaviour
and the child’s adolescent behaviour, intergenerational studies allow
comparisons between the generation of the parents and that of the child
(Thornberry, 2009).
Additionally, in our view, this debate should be broadened even more
to include other generational challenges related to incarceration. One of
the challenges in this regard is expanding the research on generational
transmission beyond the parent–child dyad. Parent–child relationships
have been at the centre of most of the intergenerational research on
crime, delinquency and incarceration. However, a somewhat neglected
problem is the nature and dynamics of the generational relations between

siblings (Bullock, 2002; Thornberry & Krohn, 2003; Scales et al., 2004).
Some research highlights the fact that siblings tend to share a high degree
of similarity in their levels of social adaptation, which is shown in a
very clear way with regard to delinquency and drug use (Bullock, 2002).
Siblings serve as models of acceptable or unacceptable behaviour, which
extend beyond the limits of influence of the other members of the family.
However, in order to address this subject, other variables are required,
namely within family dynamics. If siblings should be seen as ‘travel
companions in the coercive process of the family’ (Patterson, 1984, cit.
in Bullock, 2002, p. 347), the analysis of the family should be systemic.
This means that it is necessary to take into account the fact that, as
they interact, all members of the family system directly and recipro-
cally influence each other’s behaviour (Bullock, 2002). Also, older sibling
delinquency has been frequently associated with younger sibling delin-
quency (Farrington, 2004; Fonseca, 2004; Loeber et al., 2004), although
gender differences tend to emerge. In certain cases, it was found that
positive relationships with older sisters were a protective factor, reducing
the risk of developing delinquent practices and behavioural problems;
in contrast, relationships of the same nature with older male siblings
were more associated with triggering these problems. The existence of
coercive-hostile relations in the phratry is also related to delinquency in
younger siblings of either sex (Bullock, 2002). Hence, sibling relations
might be understood as falling within the scope of both intragenerational
and intergenerational studies, depending on the ages and life stages of
the siblings that are being considered in a certain research. They will fall
within the scope of intragenerational studies if the siblings share the same
generation or cohort and within the scope of intergenerational studies
if they are part of different generations or cohorts. Additionally, sibling
relations might be incorporated into incarceration and generation studies
by showing that the parallelism with delinquent behaviour might also
exist for incarceration. For instance, Aaron and Dalliare (2010) found
that sibling delinquency may play a central role in mediating the parental
incarceration-delinquency association for youth.
Other studies might focus on the multiple family links that can be
impacted by incarceration. For instance, Turney (2015) explored the
18 S. Gomes et al.
link between incarceration and relationship dissolution. Drawing on a

longitudinal survey, the author observed that paternal incarceration is
associated with relatively immediate relationship dissolution between the
parents. This happens mostly among parents who were living together
prior to the incarceration, and it is explained by both the duration of
the incarceration and the changes in the quality of the relationship. In
turn, this ends up adding to the collateral consequences of parental incar-
ceration for children. Other studies might even extend the concept of
generation beyond the family link, exploring the consequences of incar-
cerating different generations together (see Staranoof & Tiravassi, 2021,
volume II).
The majority of the studies have a strong focus on intergenerational
relations, but not so much on intragenerational debates. Even if longi-
tudinal studies show nuances and variation of behaviour in a particular
age group or life stage throughout the lifespan (e.g., Blokland, 2005;
Carlsson, 2012; Kyvsgaard, 2003; Laub & Sampson, 2003; Moffit, 1993,
1997; Sampson & Laub, 1990, 1993, 2003; Sampson et al., 2005),
this intragenerational analysis of deviant and criminal behaviour is not
discussed much in terms of the incarceration and/or its impacts. Using
data from the Netherlands-based Criminal Career and Life-course Study,
Nieuwbeerta et al. (2009) show how the first-time incarceration works as
a risk factor for an adult cohort, since it is associated with an increase in
criminal activity in the three years following release. Thus, these authors
not only bring to the analysis an overlooked age cohort (as most studies
focus on youth), but also observe how incarceration impacts the life
course of a certain group. Mears and Siennick (2016, p. 12) also suggest
that parental incarceration may constitute a turning point that holds the
potential to negatively affect children as they progress into adulthood.
Specifically, the incarceration of a parent constitutes the first level of the
experience of incarceration (and its effects) for a given generation, and
this experience may have long-lasting effects throughout the life course
in terms of direct incarceration experiences at a later stage. Therefore,
and following the authors’ argument, life-course perspectives are crucial
to understanding incarceration effects. By adopting them, we can discuss
the intragenerationality of incarceration, both as an effect on a particular
generation throughout the lifespan and as a life event that repeats itself
in a particular generation throughout the lifespan. Expanding on these

intragenerational relations in different types of incarceration through the
entire life course, Mallart (2019) shows how certain social groups tran-
sition from one place of confinement to another throughout their entire
life course. Based on ethnographic research conducted in certain urban
areas called cracolândia (crackland) and in prison facilities in the city of
São Paulo (Brazil), the author shows how different generations are forged
by multiple periods of confinement. Looking at a broad range of institu-
tions, from shelter homes for children and teenagers to recovery centres,
asylums, psychosocial care centres and prisons, among many others, the
author illustrates the punitive continuum that results from the penal
system and the assistance system (Campello & Mallart, 2017; Mallart,
2019).
3 Incarceration and Generation:

An Overview of Volume II
This book assumes an epistemological, theoretical and methodolog-
ical diversity, taking a multi-scale perspective by mobilising researchers
from different universities and research centres representing various local
geographies. In addition, some chapters go beyond a specific local
context and provide an international overview of specific issues. The
present volume examines intergenerational relations in the context of
incarceration, with chapters focusing particularly on intergenerational
continuities in imprisonment, intergenerational justice and citizenship,
the impacts of incarceration on multiple generations and within families
and media representations of the intergenerationality of incarceration.
It integrates the multidimensionality and expertise of authors from
different social, geographical and cultural contexts, which makes it
possible to identify, analyse and debate a variety of topics, from multiple
angles.
The first contribution to this volume draws on data from a prime
longitudinal study, the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development.
Katherine M. Auty, Henriette Bergstrøm and David P. Farrington
(Chapter 2.Intergenerational Continuities in Imprisonment: Findings from
20 S. Gomes et al.
the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development ) present a unique anal-

ysis of the prevalence of instances of imprisonment in two generations of
the study to establish whether there is an association between the impris-
onment of a father and that of his son. Intergenerational continuities in
criminal behaviour are well documented, but it is not known whether
such continuities extend to the experience of imprisonment. The results
indicated that having an imprisoned father doubled the odds of impris-
onment for the son. The strength of the relationship also lends support
to the intergenerational transmission of imprisonment both between
mothers and children and between fathers and sons.
Adverse experiences during childhood can result in negative impacts
that persist throughout an individual’s lifespan. In this sense, acting
preventively during childhood is a key step in avoiding intergenerational
delinquent trajectories and intergenerational transmission of imprison-
ment. The need to adopt a holistic view of child participation across the
entire justice system provides the basis for the chapter by Cédric Foussard
and HaRyong Jung (Chapter 3. Towards a Holistic Approach to Systemic
Child Participation for Child-Friendly Justice). Addressing the rights of
children deprived of liberty in various detention settings, the authors
advocate a shift from the conventional discourse on child participation
in justice towards a holistic approach to systemic child participation in
order to achieve a child-friendly justice. They adopt an original approach
that goes beyond the concept and problems of detention, better alterna-
tive options and reintegration measures, all of which have been covered
extensively in literature and in other chapters of this book (see Goldson
& Randazzo, 2021; Finca-Ruiz, 2021; Zeiljamns et al., 2021, volume
I). On the basis of that approach, the authors place the discussion on
the core notion that children deprived of liberty–whose voices often go
unheard–should not be considered in isolation. According to the authors,
children should be seen as a part of the larger system when it comes
to systemic participation and impact across all the stages of judicial
and other legal proceedings. Recognising that adults traditionally take
decisions and operate justice systems on behalf of children, the inter-
generational dimension of participation thus needs to be reframed to
promote agency for all children in matters that have serious consequences
and a central impact on their lives.
In line with the previous chapter concerning the debate on how

the generational differences and power relations between actors from
the formal control systems and the populations in incarceration could
be expressed, the chapter by Ann Staranoof and Antonella Tiravassi
(Chapter 4. Victims or victimizers? An Insight of Imprisoned Youths in Latin
America) moves the focus from childhood to youth and young adult-
hood. The authors make a relevant contribution that sheds light on a
major problem in Latin America: the vertical violence within prisons.
Drawing on the findings from the “Survey of Persons Deprived of Their
Freedom”, conducted in eight Latin American countries, and on a long
tradition of Latin America studies on the violence exercised by means
of formal control against vulnerable populations (see Sallas et al., 2021,
volume I), the authors bring to the discussion the victimisation perpe-
trated by police officers and prison staff in relation to the young and
adult population behind bars. Thus, this chapter fills a gap in the existing
literature by expanding the knowledge on the study of vertical victimisa-
tion perpetrated by institutional representatives, paying special attention
to the victim’s age group at the time of detention. The main find-
ings point out the need for a more in-depth reflection on the social
and legal construction of the concepts of youth and young adulthood
in contemporary societies, inquiring about the nature of the judicial
responses applied to them, which goes hand in hand with the conclu-
sions of other studies conducted on the Global North and presented in
different chapters in this book (see Zeiljmans et al., 2021; Carvalho et al.,
2021, volume I). A recommendation common to the works of research
presented in these two volumes and cutting across a variety of latitudes
and social, cultural and justice contexts stresses the importance of estab-
lishing distinct contexts of detention and alternatives to detention for
those who are under-aged and 18 and those experiencing emerging adult-
hood, in order to address their specific developmental needs, which differ
from the needs of other generations.
Keeping the focus on the dimensions of intergenerational relations
within incarceration, the two following chapters offer valuable comple-
mentary views on parental issues regarding ‘fathering’–being a father–or
‘mothering’–being a mother–from within prison and its constraints. As
22 S. Gomes et al.
anticipated in some of the chapters in this volume, a strong intergenera-

tional association between parent and child criminality could be observed
in correctional literature, although correlations are unlikely to capture
causal effects (see Auty et al., 2021; Bhuller et al., 2021, volume II).
Beyond establishing causal effects, we cannot ignore the intergenera-
tional dynamics, challenges and impacts that incarceration represents
for families. In the context of a Portuguese male prison, the chapter by
Rafaela Granja (Chapter 5. Fathering from prison: Managing relations and
reflecting upon intergenerational impacts) advances the knowledge on how
imprisoned men manage their fatherhood and reflect upon the intergen-
erational impacts of their imprisonment. Based on qualitative research
and an in-depth analysis of different narratives from male prisoners, the
author explores the challenges and tensions felt by imprisoned men in
terms of childcare practices, economic provision and sustaining their
identity as fathers in a context characterised by imposed separation, penal
restrictions and scarcity of resources. This chapter is ground-breaking in
its scope within the subject of the intergenerational impacts of impris-
onment in families, since studies tend to focus mainly on mothers,
disregarding the role of men as fathers.
If Granja challenges us on the topic of what it is to be a father in
prison and the potential intergenerational impacts of incarceration on
their children, Helen Namondo Linonge-Fontebo (Chapter 6. Effects
of Incarceration on Families in Cameroon Prisons: Perspectives of Impris-
oned Mothers, Minors and the Elderly), in turn, addresses the effects of
incarceration on female prisoners and their children, adopting a gender-
sensitive approach and using standpoint feminist theory to give a voice
to women’s perspectives. Taking an in-depth look at the Cameroon peni-
tentiary system, this chapter offers a unique view on the spill-over effect
of intergenerational incarceration. On the one hand, it advances knowl-
edge on the coping strategies employed by female prisoners to deal
with motherhood issues–pregnancy, childbearing and childcare–in the
context of specific African prisons, in which they are held in the same
space with other generations, namely the elderly and children. On the
other hand, the author highlights the vulnerabilities on the intersection
between penal policy and prison practices, a current issue covered in
other chapters of this book (see Goldson et al., 2021; Carvalho et al.,
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
“Honored by fools!” growled Roland.
“Honored by the wisest men in college! Honored by every one! If you
had seen every person in that great crowd on the campus rise when
his name was spoken by the historian——”
“I did see it, and then I got away.”
“Then you were there? But you were not in your place.”
“If I had been, they would have seen that one college man did not
rise when Merriwell’s name was called.”
“And you would have brought on yourself the scorn of every one.
Can’t you see that by his generosity, his fine character, and
manliness, he has risen far above you?”
“No! I see that he has a trick of fooling everybody but me. He can
make his enemies forget that they were once enemies, but I am not
like the others. I want to tell you something, Oll. You think Merriwell
has triumphed, but you are wrong. I am the one who has triumphed,
though no one save myself knows it. Some time Merriwell shall
know, and then he will realize that one of his enemies was more than
a match for him.”
“What do you mean?” asked Oliver, amazed. “Are you crazy?”
“Never mind what I mean, but I speak the truth. I have triumphed,
and Merriwell is my victim. I’ll talk no more about it, so you may as
well close your face.”
And Oliver could get nothing further from his brother.
CHAPTER VII.
THE END COMES.
The day of graduation came. The sun shone bright and clear on this
great day in the life of Frank Merriwell, but still that feeling of
sadness was lingering in his heart, for he felt that he was bidding
farewell to his dear home.
Frank had competed to be a Townsend teacher, and he had been
chosen one of the fortunate six who were to speak for the DeForest
gold medal.
Thus it happened that he was given little time for thought and little in
which to see his friends, all of whom were eager to be in his
company.
Had he known that the oilskin envelope in his possession contained
nothing but blank paper it is not probable he could have spoken as
brilliantly as he did.
When the speaking was over it was generally conceded that the
handsome medal must go to Merriwell.
The faculty adjourned to the Treasury building, and there Frank was
awarded the splendid prize. Each member of the faculty shook his
hand in turn and spoke some word of praise to him. They looked on
him lovingly, for they knew that he had done more to raise the
standard of college life than any other student in the country.
Frank was on his way to his room when he almost collided with
Roland Packard.
Packard had been drinking heavily, and he stopped, his lip curling in
a scornful sneer.
“You think you’re it, Merriwell,” he said, in a tone of great contempt;
“but, if you only knew it, you are the biggest fool alive.”
Frank had no desire to exchange words with the fellow.
“You’re drunk, Packard,” he said quietly.
“You’re a liar, Merriwell!” snarled Packard, who seemed not to have a
single remnant of reason left.
Frank was not in the habit of taking the lie from anybody, but now,
seeing Packard’s arm in a sling, he did not heed the fellow’s insult.
“Your friends think you’re a great gun,” Roland went on; “but you
really are mighty small potatoes. Won the DeForest prize, did you?
Well, you may have to pawn it soon to get bread to keep you from
starving!”
This did not have the effect Roland had fancied it might, which
angered him to a still further expression of rage.
“Oh, you’re mighty cool; but you won’t be so cool when you find
you’re a beggar! And you are! I know what I’m talking about. You will
find it out in time, and I want to tell you now that it is I—I, Roland
Packard, whom you despise, who has made you a beggar! Don’t
forget it!”
He wheeled and walked swiftly away.
Frank stood still and looked after the fellow.
“I wonder what he meant,” Merry muttered, a feeling of uneasiness in
his breast. “Is he plumb daffy? I know he’s pretty drunk, but still it
seems that he must have some reason left.”
Frank was troubled despite himself, and he hurried to his room,
where he made sure the oilskin envelope was still safe in his
possession.
Packard had hurried away to drink still more. Already he was half-
crazed by liquor, but he felt consumed by a burning fire that called
for more, more, more.
The afternoon of graduation-day came and saw all graduating
students in caps and gowns, headed by the faculty, likewise garbed,
march to the music of a band out of the campus and down Elm
Street to the green, which they crossed, turning up Chapel Street to
Vanderbilt. The gates of Vanderbilt are opened but once a year,
always on this occasion, and through the gates they marched, under
the arch and across the campus. The chapel was entered, and then
came the last solemn ceremony of conferring the degrees.
Frank thrilled when he stood up to receive his sheepskin. There was
a choking in his throat, his sensation was a mingled feeling of joy
and sorrow that was like exquisite pain. His face was pale as marble.
When the certificate was placed in his hand he felt that it was the
document that divorced him from dear old Yale, and he sat down
with his teeth clenched to hold back the moan that sought vent.
It was over!
That afternoon a man was seen reeling over the Barnesville bridge.
He was intoxicated, and he seemed to fancy he was pursued by an
enemy or enemies who sought his life. Filled with mad terror, he
climbed upon the railing not far from the eastern end of the bridge
and flung himself headlong into the river.
Several persons had seen this crazy act, and they rushed to rescue
him, if possible. Two men pulled out in a boat toward the spot where
he had last been seen. As they pulled he rose to the surface, made a
few feeble splashes, and sank.
One of the men stripped off his coat and plunged in. He brought the
drowning fellow up, helped the other man get him into the boat,
crawled in himself, and they pulled ashore.
On the shore men worked nearly an hour over the poor wretch, but
all their efforts were unavailing. He was dead. In his pocket they
found some letters, which told them he was a student and that his
name was Roland Packard.
And thus it came about that in the pocket of his dead brother Oliver
Packard found another envelope that looked exactly like the one
Roland had snatched from Merriwell. He was astonished and
puzzled, but he took it to Merriwell.
“One of them must contain the message, Merriwell,” said Oliver,
whose face was marked with deep sorrow.
“To-morrow will tell,” said Frank, “for then I will open them both.” He
took Oliver’s hand. “I am very sorry, Packard,” he said.
“It is for the best,” declared Oliver; but his chin quivered as he turned
away.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE MESSAGE STOLEN AGAIN.
“The time has come!”

The words came from the lips of Frank Merriwell, who was standing
beside a small table in a room of one of New York’s big hotels. In his
hand he held the two oilskin envelopes. Across each envelope had
been written:
“To Frank Merriwell; to be opened the day after he graduates from
Yale.”
Frank had studied the writing on those envelopes, and he was
convinced that the words on one had been imitated and copied from
the other.
Bart Hodge was Merry’s companion, sitting near and showing no
small amount of interest in the singular envelopes.
“Which contains the message?” was the question that came from
Bart’s lips.
“That is a conundrum,” admitted Frank, as he gazed from one to the
other.
“This is the one Oliver Packard returned that night the old grads
were celebrating on Osborne corner.”
“Which one is that, the original or the fake?”
“The original.”
“Then what do you make of it?”
“I believe it does not contain the message. I believe the original
envelope was opened by Roland Packard.”
“Why did he do that?”
“I don’t know, unless he expected he would have to give up
something and was determined to hang on to the real message. I am
convinced that there was somebody behind Roland Packard. He was
not working on his own hook. The messenger was pursued all the
way from Colorado to New Haven by a man who seemed
determined to do him injury. That man failed, but is it not possible he
instigated the action of Roland Packard?”
“And you think the stranger employed him to get hold of the
message?”
“I have arrived at that belief.”
“Still, that does not explain the fake envelope.”
“It seems to me that Roland Packard’s curiosity was aroused and he
determined to find out what the original envelope contained. He
opened it. In fact, having studied and examined this envelope
closely, I think I can detect indications that it has been broken open.”
“Then it is likely that Oliver Packard did not restore to you the
message, after all.”
“Not in this first envelope, but you know he brought me this other,
which was taken from the body of his dead brother.”
“Then it is possible that the second envelope is the one that contains
the message.”
“Yes,” nodded Frank. “I almost dread to open it, although the time to
do so has come. Something seems to whisper that it contains a
great surprise for me.”
Frank sat down beside the table, and, with a firm hand, tore open the
envelope he regarded as the original. An exclamation escaped his
lips as he drew forth the contents.
“Look, Bart!” he cried. “I was right! Nothing but blank paper!”
He held the unsoiled sheets up before the eyes of his almost
breathless companion.
“By Jove! you were right!” said Hodge. “You have a way of figuring
things out correctly, Merriwell. The other envelope must contain the
message.”
But, strange to say, Merriwell seemed to hesitate again.
“What if it should not!” he muttered. “What if that also contains
nothing but blank paper!”
“But it must contain the message!” exclaimed Bart.
“Why?”
“Because—because the message was not in this one.”
“A poor reason, Bart. It’s likely this envelope was fixed to deceive the
man who employed Roland Packard to secure the message. I
presume that man offered Packard money to get the message and
turn it over to him. Packard’s curiosity was aroused, and he decided
to find out what the message contained, which led him to remove it
from the envelope. Then he fixed up the original envelope to deceive
the man who had paid him to do the crooked work, but his brother
took it from him in the fight. Following that it is likely that he fixed up
this other envelope for the purpose of fooling his rascally employer.
In such a case, it is almost certain that envelope No. 2 contains
blank paper, the same as the first.”
“Open it!” panted Hodge.
“That will settle it,” said Frank, as he did so.
Bart was rigid as a marble image as Merry drew the contents of the
envelope forth.
From Frank’s lips came a sigh of satisfaction.
“It is the message!” he said.
Had he not been so preoccupied, so absorbed, Frank Merriwell
would have heard the slight rustling sound in the alcove bedroom
behind him. In times of expected danger his alertness was
something remarkable, but just now his mind was concentrated on
the mysterious message which he had taken from the envelope.
Nor did Bart hear anything to arouse his suspicions.
A slight breeze came through the open bedroom window, and gently
stirred the portières behind Frank’s back.
Merriwell’s face grew very pale as he read the opening words of the
message, and his watching companion knew something had
produced a profound effect on him.
“What is it?” Bart was compelled to ask.
“It is from my father, as I believed,” said Merriwell, plainly making an
effort to steady his voice. “I have read nothing but the opening
sentence, but this is what it says:
“‘This, my son, is the confession of your father, who, near to the point
of death and beyond all hope of recovery, is lying in the cabin of
Juan Delores, near Urmiston, which is about fifty miles from
Denver.’”
“Great Scott!” exclaimed Hodge. “Your father dying?”
“Dead by this time, it is likely,” came sadly from Frank’s lips. “And I
not near in his last moments!”
The expression of regret and grief on Frank’s face was sincere and
profound.
“Too bad!” muttered Bart. “But he always was such a strange man!”
“Strange, indeed,” nodded Frank. “I knew little of his life after he
went to seek his fortune amid the mines, save that part which is
closely connected with his fight against his great enemy, Santenel.
He told me that portion of it, but concerning the rest he has said little
or nothing.”
“This may throw light upon it. He calls it a confession.”
“And the fact that he has called it that makes me hesitate once more
about reading. But it must be done.”
Again Merry lifted the message to read.
Over his shoulder darted a hand that snatched the message from his
grasp!
At the same moment, uttering a cry of warning, Bart Hodge sprang to
his feet, pointing toward the parted portières behind Merriwell.
Merry shot to his feet like a flash, but he was barely in time to see a
man disappearing between the portières.
A second time had the precious message been snatched from his
fingers.
“Stop him!” shouted Hodge.
Merry was first to leap between the portières, and yet he was barely
in time to see a man disappearing through a window that led out
upon a fire-escape.
A single glimpse of the man’s face Merriwell obtained as he plunged
after him. He saw him entering the open window of an adjoining
room, the fire-escape running from one window to the other.
At a single bound Frank reached the other window and followed the
man into the room. The fugitive was passing out through a door that
led into the hall as Merry jumped in by the window.
Toward that door bounded Merry. It was slammed in his face.
It had a spring-lock, and for a moment it bothered Frank, who was
compelled to pause to open it. By that time Hodge had reached the
window of the room, into which he looked in great surprise, seeing
that Merry was there alone.
“Where is the——” Frank heard no more of Bart’s question, for he
tore open the door and leaped out into the corridor.
The fugitive had disappeared.
Frank went dashing along the passage, looking for the man, but
seeing nothing of him. The fellow had disappeared in a most
remarkable manner after leaving the room.
“Search, Hodge!” called Merry, and Bart joined in the hunt.
But though they searched everywhere, they found nothing of the
man they were after. The hotel was aroused. The clerk in the office
was notified, and he sent the hotel detective to join in the search.
But, after an hour of hunting, the searchers were forced to give up,
as the unknown thief had not been found.
Then Merry went to the office and took a look at the register to find
out who had occupied the room next to his—the one through which
the desperate rascal had made good his retreat from the fire-escape.
The name on the register was “Anton Mescal, Fair Play, Col.”
“Fair Play!” muttered Hodge, who was looking over Frank’s shoulder.
“What does a scoundrel like that know of fair play?”
Frank asked the clerk if he could give a description of Mescal.
“He is slender, looks like a Spaniard, and has a small, pointed, black
mustache,” was the answer. “I do not remember how he was
dressed, so his clothes must have been fairly within the style.”
“That’s the man!” exclaimed Hodge. “I saw his face, and the
description fits.”
Frank nodded.
“I believe Mescal is the man,” he said. “I will give one thousand
dollars for his capture and the restoration to me of the document
which he snatched from my hands.”
The clerk looked at Merry, as if doubting his ability to pay such a
sum; but the young Yale graduate was taking a small roll of bills from
his pocket. From the roll he drew off two five-hundred-dollar bills,
which he handed to the cashier, who stood near the clerk.
“The money is to be paid to the person or persons who capture or
cause to be captured the thief who stole the document from me, in
case it is restored to my hands,” said Merriwell quietly. “You are to
enlist the services of the regular police and do everything in your
power.”
“The police have been called already,” said the clerk. “I telephoned
the nearest station immediately, and two officers appeared very
shortly. They have been guarding the entrances to the hotel, while
the regular house detectives have been searching. I suspected this
Mescal and gave an accurate description of him to the policemen.
They have not stopped him as yet.”
“Only two officers on guard!” exclaimed Frank. “Yet there is a front
and back entrance, and one through your barber’s shop and by the
way of the bar. Mr. Mescal is out of the hotel by this time.”
“We have done everything we could” declared the clerk.
Frank turned away.
“The message is lost, Bart,” he said.
“Lost?” said Bart, astonished that Frank should give up so easily.
“Yes,” Merry nodded, his face wearing a grim expression.
Hodge was trembling with rage at the outcome.
“It’s an infernal shame!” he hissed. “Merriwell, you must——”
Frank’s hand gripped his arm.
“Come!” said Merry’s voice, still calm and restrained.
Together they went to the nearest police-station, where Frank told
his story to the sergeant in charge, repeating his offer for the arrest
of the thief and the restoration of the message. He was told that
everything possible should be done, and with that promise he was
compelled to be satisfied.
Frank scarcely spoke as they returned to the hotel. Bart wiped the
perspiration from his face and said things to himself.
In his room Merry sat quite still for some time, the look on his face
indicating that he was in deep thought.
Bart did not venture to break in upon his meditations. To Hodge this
second loss of the message, at the moment when Merry had begun
to read it, was something to throw him into a perfect tempest of rage;
but Frank had shown that he was master of his temper.
Bart knew Merry was thoughtfully considering the situation and
studying over it in view of the proper course to pursue. After half an
hour he quietly said:
“That is what I’ll do.”
“What is it?” asked Bart, unable to repress his curiosity longer. “What
have you decided to do?”
“I believe there is not one chance in a thousand that the man who
snatched that message will be captured before he can get out of
New York, and this has led me to decide on a course of action. In the
single sentence that I read my father said that he was at the cabin of
Juan Delores, near Urmiston, which is about fifty miles from Denver.
I shall wait here until to-morrow. If the police have not made a
capture by that time, I shall leave New York.”
“Whither bound?”
“For the cabin of Juan Delores, near Urmiston, Colorado. I am going
to find out the truth, if possible. There is a mystery to be solved, and
I mean to solve it. Bart!”
“Frank!”
“Are you with me?”
Merry had risen. Hodge leaped to his feet. Their hands met, as Bart
exclaimed:
“To the end, through thick and thin!”
CHAPTER IX.
THE OLD INDIAN.
Before them lay the mighty Rockies, rising range on range, till their
glittering, snow-capped summits pressed the sky. Wild and
picturesque and awe-inspiring was the scene. They were in the foot-
hills, and the country was rough and broken.
Frank had drawn rein at the mouth of what seemed to be a small
valley. He was covered with dust, and the hardy mustang he
bestrode showed signs of weariness.
Merriwell was clothed to rough it, having exchanged the garments of
the cities and towns for those more suited to the latter stages of his
search for the cabin of Juan Delores. On his head was a wide-
brimmed felt hat, and he wore a woolen shirt, with a side collar and a
flowing tie, a cartridge-belt about his waist, and leather leggings
covered his trousers nearly to his thighs. There were spurs on the
heels of his boots. His coat he had stripped off, for the day was
warm to an uncomfortable degree.
A Winchester repeating rifle was slung at the pommel of Merry’s
saddle, and a pair of long-barreled revolvers rested in the holsters on
his hips. Taken altogether, he looked like a young man who had
made preparations for almost anything he might encounter.
Bart Hodge, similarly mounted and dressed, had drawn up beside
Frank.
Despite their attire, there was something in the appearance of the
two young men that marked them as belonging to “the tenderfoot
breed.” In other words, the experienced eye would have discovered
at a glance that they were Easterners.
A cool breeze came down the valley, bearing with it a pleasant odor
of wild growing things.
The faces of both lads, lately fresh from college, had been burned
and blistered by the hot suns and searing winds.
“It’s remarkable,” said Frank, “that the people at Urmiston know
Delores, know he lives somewhere in this vicinity, yet not one of
them could give us accurate directions to reach his cabin.”
“Hanged remarkable!” growled Bart. “This is the third day we have
spent in hunting for his old place, and we’ve not even found a clue to
it.”
Merry nodded, frowning beneath the wide brim of his hat.
“We may have passed and repassed it,” he said. “There are plenty of
places where cabins could be hidden in these valleys.”
“That’s right. What are we to do?”
“Keep on hunting.”
“It’s rather tiresome.”
“I shall stick to it till I find the cabin of Delores, if it takes a year!”
exclaimed Frank grimly.
Bart knew he would do exactly as he said.
“Perhaps we may be disappointed when we do find it.”
“At least, I should be able to learn if my father is dead, and where he
is buried.”
“But the message——”
“I have hopes that I may learn the secret of that, also. It may be that
he did not trust it alone to that one document.”
“It’s getting late. What are we to do now? Shall we explore this valley
to-night, or wait till morning?”
Little of the valley could be seen through the narrow pass, and that
little seemed to promise that it led onward far into the hills. After a
moment Frank answered:
“We’ll ride forward and see if we can get a look into it.”
He started onward, and Bart followed, but they had proceeded only a
short distance when they were startled to see, sitting on a boulder at
one side of the pass, a strange figure. At first it was hard to make out
whether it was man or woman, but, as they drew nearer, it
straightened up and revealed, peering from the folds of a dirty red
blanket, the wrinkled and gnarled face of an old Indian. A pair of
beady black eyes were steadily regarding the two young men.
“Watch him, Merry,” cautioned Bart, in a low tone. “These half-
civilized red dogs are treacherous.”
The Indian did not stir as they approached. Beside him, leaning
against the boulder, was a handsome rifle. He did not touch the
weapon.
“Hello, chief,” said Frank, addressing the old man in a manner he
knew was flattering to some redskins, as he drew up.
“How, how,” grunted the old fellow, in answer.
“Are you acquainted in this vicinity?”
“Ak-waint?” said the old man. “No savvy.”
“Are you familiar with the country?”
“Fam-mil? What him?”
“Have you been all round every place here?” asked Merry, with a
sweep of his arm, using the simplest words he could command.
“Heap been all over,” was the assurance.
“Know Juan Delores?”
“Him don’t live round here.”
The answer was prompt enough—a trifle too prompt, Frank fancied.
“Doesn’t?” said Merry. “Where does he live?”
“Heap long way off there,” and the redskin pointed to the north.
“Are you sure?”
“Heap sure.”
“How far? How many miles?”
“Two time ten.”
“Twenty?”
The old fellow grunted an affirmative.
“Do you know the way to his place?”
Another affirmative grunt.
“Can you guide us there?”
“No time.”
“We will pay you well.”
“No time.”
“I will give you fifty dollars to guide us to the cabin of Juan Delores.”
“No time.”
“A hundred dollars.”
“No time.”
“Confound him!” growled Hodge angrily. “Money is no object to him.
It’s likely he doesn’t know the value of money. Now, if you had a
quart of whisky to offer him, Merriwell, you might get him to do the
job.”
“I will give you a new blanket and a rifle,” promised Merry.
“Got blanket an’ rifle,” said the old Indian.
“I will give you a good horse.”
“Got heap good horse.”
“What haven’t you got that you want?”
“No want nothin’.”
“Will you tell us how to get to the cabin of Delores?”
“Go there two time ten mile, find stream, go up him to spring, take
trail from spring; it make you come to where Juan he live.”
Merriwell was not at all satisfied with these directions. There was
something in the manner of the old redskin that seemed to arouse
his suspicions and make him feel that he was being deceived. Of a
sudden Frank asked:
“Who lives in this valley?”
The old man shook his head.
“No know,” he said. “Wolf, bear, mebbe.”
“That’s not what I mean. Is there a white man who lives in this
valley?”
Again a shake of the head.
“Wolf, bear, that all. No; big mount’n-lion—him there. Him kill hunter
—one, two, t’ree, four hunter—what come for him. Him vely bad lion
—heap bad.”
Frank was watching the man closely.
“That’s just what I’m looking for!” he exclaimed, as if delighted. “I
want to shoot a mountain-lion.”
“You no can shoot him. Big hunter try—no do it. Him kill you heap
quick, you go in there.”
“He is trying to frighten us so we’ll not go into the valley,” thought
Frank. Aloud he said:
“That’s all right; I’ll take chances. I reckon the two of us will be too
much for Mr. Lion.”
“White boy much foolish,” declared the old redskin grimly. “Make big
supper for lion. Lion him like white man for supper.”
“And I’ll have the pelt of that lion just as sure as I live,” said Merry, as
if in sudden determination. “Come on, Bart!”
The old Indian rose quickly as they were about to start forward.
“Stop!” he cried. “Ole Joe Crowfoot him tell you truth. If you go in
there you never come back some more. Ole Joe Crowfoot him good
Injun—him like white man heap much. No want to see um hurt. Tell
um to stay back.”
The old savage seemed deeply in earnest now, but that earnestness
was something that added to Frank’s suspicions and made him all
the more determined to go on.
“That’s all right,” said Merry, with a grim smile. “It’s kind of you to
take so much interest in us, but we’re going after your heap bad lion,
and we’ll have his pelt.”
“Night come soon,” said the Indian, with a motion toward the range
on range of mountains rising to the westward. “Then lion him crouch
and spring. Him git you quick.”
“We’ll see. If you wait round here long enough we’ll show you the
pelt of your bad lion when we come back.”
“No come back,” declared Old Joe Crowfoot, solemnly. “No see you
some more. By-by.”
An expression of deep sadness and regret was on his wrinkled old
face as he uttered the words. Merry laughed lightly, and they rode
past him and headed onward into the valley.
“He was very anxious to stop us,” said Hodge.
“That’s right,” nodded Frank. “He was altogether too anxious. As
soon as I tumbled to that I decided to take a look into the valley. Do
you know, we stumbled on the entrance to this valley by accident. I
fancy we might search a week for it, if we were to go away now,
without finding it.”
“I was thinking of that,” said Bart. “It might puzzle us to find it again.
Perhaps that old duffer was counting on that. Those red dogs are
treacherous, and——”
They heard a sharp cry behind them. Whirling in the saddle, Frank
saw the old Indian standing with the butt of his rifle pressed against
his shoulder.
The muzzle on the rifle was turned directly toward Frank, and plainly
the redskin was on the point of pressing the trigger.
Frank knew he was in deadly peril, and he would have attempted to
fling himself from the saddle but for something else he saw.
On a mass of jagged rocks behind the Indian and about twenty feet
above his head had appeared a boy. Not over thirteen years of age
was the lad, whose curly, dark hair fell upon his shoulders. He was
dressed in fanciful garments, like those worn by a young Mexican
lad, and the bright colors of his clothes made him a picturesque
figure.
Plainly it was from his lips that the cry had issued.
In his hand the boy held a stone as large as a man’s fist, and even
as Merry turned he hurled the stone. Straight through the air whizzed
the missile, striking the barrel of the old Indian’s rifle.
Smoke belched from the muzzle of the weapon and the crags flung
back the sound of the report, but the bullet flew wild.
Frank Merriwell’s life had been saved by the stone thrown by the
strange boy.
With an exclamation of rage, Hodge snatched up his rifle and reined
his mount round to take a shot at the redskin, who had wheeled
instantly and was clambering up the rocks toward the boy, as if bent
on murder.
“Soak him, Merry!” panted Bart.
Frank’s first impulse was to shoot, but he quickly saw that he was in
no further danger just then, and he had no desire to shed human
blood unless compelled to do so.
Bart’s rifle rose, but Merry thrust the muzzle aside just as the
weapon spoke, and the bullet flattened on the rocks.
“Why did you do that?” roared Hodge, in amazement and anger.
“Can’t you see! That red devil is going to murder the kid!”
It did seem that the Indian meant the boy harm, and Merry shouted:
“If you put a hand on that boy I’ll bore you!”
At the same time he held his own rifle ready for instant use.

Incarceration and Generation Volume Ii Challenging Generational Relations 1St Edition Silvia Gomes Maria Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Incarceration and Generation Volume Ii Challenging Generational Relations 1St Edition Silvia Gomes Maria Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Incarceration And Generation, Volume

II: Challenging Generational Relations

More information about this series at

Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology

Cover credit: Smartha/Alamy Stock Photo

Writing a book in a time of pandemic has been an incredibly challenging

Maria João Leote de Carvalho would like to thank the FCT—

“Long underdeveloped and overlooked, the intense generational effects

“In the face of the pervasive use of detention as a form of manage-

“Incarceration and Generation is the result of a truly international

the diversity in geographic representation, and the coverage of both time-

“This volume presents original, rich and diverse perspectives on incarcer-

1 Incarceration and Generational Relations—Exploring

5 Fathering from Prison: Managing Relations

Katherine M. Auty is a Senior Research Associate in the Prisons

University of Chicago. He received a Ph.D. from the University of Oslo

family, genetics and crime and reconfigurations of family relation-

support of FCT (Ref. SFRH/BPD/116119/2016). She has been involved

degrees in criminology and political science from Florida State Univer-

Pedro Sousa holds a Ph.D. in Economics from ISEG (University of

Fig. 2 Incarceration Rates and GDP per Capita (Notes Sample

Incarceration and Generation: Challenging Generational Relations is the

key intergenerational relations issues within incarceration. The first

explore issues relating to family and incarceration–and also as a cohort

1 Expanding the Conceptual Delimitation

adulthood–and by exploring the family context, such as kinship ties and

Ryder, 1965), investigation has established the existence of wide varia-

1989; Seydlitz, 2016a, 2016b; Stephen, 2006; Tremblay et al., 2003;

of interaction between parents and children and deficient exercise of

a product of particular combinations of the encompassing structures with

Over our lifetimes many of us will cohabit, marry, separate, parent

The emergence of forms of family (re)composition gives greater visibility

The notion of family mobilises the relational aspect, which is essen-

2 The Intersection of Incarceration

particularly in crime studies, which we have explored so far, helps to

important for predicting the criminal behaviour of children (Besemer,

affected behavioural outcomes (such as fighting and truancy) and the

intergenerational impact of criminalisation and incarceration in low-

academic outcomes are impacted by trauma, stigma and the strain of

problem is the nature and dynamics of the generational relations between

link between incarceration and relationship dissolution. Drawing on a

in a particular generation throughout the lifespan. Expanding on these

3 Incarceration and Generation:

the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development ) present a unique anal-

In line with the previous chapter concerning the debate on how

anticipated in some of the chapters in this volume, a strong intergenera-

“The time has come!”

You might also like