subject to discrimination or segregation; and it emphasises the weaknesses in the social infrastructure and the risk of allowing a two-tier society to become established by default.
If the above definition of social exclusion is used social reintegration can then be defined thus: Social reintegration refers to the multiple and changing factors resulting in people being reinstated in the normal exchanges, practices and rights of modern society. Receipt of an adequate income is a fundamental factor, but social integration/reintegration also refers to adequate rights in housing, education, health and access to services, and to the ability to participate in community life with the full rights and obligations of citizenship.
In this Report we also use the concept of resettlement: developed in support of the analysis of reintegration more tangible material criteria of ‘re-entry’ such as
concept that may usefully be its meaning is limited to the housing, job, education etc.
Reintegration should be retained as the material criteria and the more subjective
more comprehensive and abstract such as
concept referring both rights acquisition, loss
stigma, less depression etc. context is re-entry (Maruna this analysis.)
(Another concept that and Immarigeon 2004)
is currently but it is not
being deployed in this a concept that we use in
Sub hypothesis 1.1: Some women are imprisoned not so much for the seriousness of their crimes but because they are already suffering a degree of social exclusion which make alternatives to prison seem less feasible to sentencers. In view of the strong indications that sentencers have recently been sending more women to prison who previously would have received non-custodial sentences, and in view also of the fact that new socio-penal discourses of need support such increased imprisonment of people with multiple material and psychological needs the hypothesis that women are sent to prison not so much for the seriousness of their crimes but because they are already suffering a degree of social exclusion is sustained, and the supporting evidence is presented below. [The second part of the hypothesis is discussed in 1.1a]
One of the mysteries of the rapid rise in the numbers of women imprisoned in England and Wales over the past decade has been that although, overall, women do not seem to have been committing more serious crimes, sentencers have become increasingly punitive towards women, sentencing them to prison when they would have previously given them a non-custodial sentence and in cases where they would have previously given them a prison sentence, sending them to prison for a longer term than before (Hedderman 2002).
Despite there having been little measurable change in women’s offending behaviour or drug use, the numbers being convicted and sentenced have increased substantially since 1992. Official Statistics show that there were 5,100 more women being sentenced for indictable offences in 2000 while the number of men fell by 5,400. Nearly 60 per cent of the extra cases involved theft and handling or fraud and forgery, most of the rest involved drugs but there was no increase in numbers sentenced for violence.