skip to main content
research-article

The Social Mile - How (Psychosocial) ICT can Help to Promote Resocialization and to Overcome Prison

Authors Info & Claims
Published:05 December 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

There is currently uncertainty in the research community as to how ICT can and should be designed in such a way that it can be convincingly integrated into the everyday lives of prison inmates. In this paper, we discuss a design fiction that closes this research gap. The descriptions and results of the study are purely fictitious. Excluded is the State of the Art as well as the description of the legal situation of prisons in Germany. The analysis of the fictional study data designed here thus refers to the real world in order to derive ethical guidelines and draw practical conclusions. It is our intention to use these results as a possible basis for further research. The paper presents results of an explorative study dealing with the design, development and evaluation of an AI-based Smart Mirror System, Prison AI 2.0, in a German prison. Prison AI 2.0 was developed for daily use and voluntarily tested by eight prisoners over a period of 12 months to gain insight into their individual and social impact, with an emphasis on its ability to actively support rehabilitation. Based on qualitative data, our findings suggest that intelligent AI-based devices can actually help promote such an outcome. Our results also confirm the valuable impact of (Psychosocial) ICT on the psychological, social and individual aspects of prison life, and in particular how prisoners used the Smart Mirror system to improve and maintain their cognitive, mental and physical state and to restore social interactions with the outside world. With the presentation of these results we want to initiate discussions about the use of ICT by prisoners in closed prisons in order to identify opportunities and risks.

References

  1. An average of 12 phones are seized in Irish prisons every week: https://www.thejournal.ie/prisons-mobile-phones-3573543-Aug2017/. Accessed: 2019-06-03.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayres, L. 2008. Semi-structured interview. The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. (2008), 811--813.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Barreiro-Gen, M. and Novo-Corti, I. 2015. Collaborative learning in environments with restricted access to the internet: Policies to bridge the digital divide and exclusion in prisons through the development of the skills of inmates. Computers in Human Behavior. 51, (Oct. 2015), 1172--1176. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.076.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Barreiro-Gen, M., Novo-Corti, I. and Varela-Candamio, L. 2013. e-Prisons and New Technologies: ICT as a Mechanism of Social Inclusion of Prisoners. International Journal of Knowledge Society Research. 4, 3 (Jul. 2013), 1--10. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4018/ijksr.2013070101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Benner, K. and Dewan, S. 2019. Alabama's Gruesome Prisons: Report Finds Rape and Murder at All Hours. The New York Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Blythe, M. 2014. Research through design fiction: narrative in real and imaginary abstracts. Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '14 (Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2014), 703--712.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Blythe, M., Steane, J., Roe, J. and Oliver, C. 2015. Solutionism, the Game: Design Fictions for Positive Aging. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '15 (Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2015), 3849--3858.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Ceaparu, I., Lazar, J., Bessiere, K., Robinson, J. and Shneiderman, B. 2004. Determining Causes and Severity of End-User Frustration. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 17, 3 (Sep. 2004), 333--356. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327590ijhc1703_3.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Coates, S. 2016. Unlocking Potential: A review of education in prison. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Council of Europe 2006. Recommendation Rec(2006) 2 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the European Prison Rules.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Dollinger, B. and Schmidt, H. 2015. Zur Aktualität von Goffmans Konzept totaler Institutionen --Empirische Befunde zur gegenwärtigen Situation des ?Unterlebens "in Gefängnissen. Handbuch Jugendstrafvollzug--Handlungsfelder und Konzepte. (2015), 245--259.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Dorussen, H., Lenz, H. and Blavoukos, S. 2005. Assessing the Reliability and Validity of Expert Interviews. European Union Politics. 6, 3 (Sep. 2005), 315--337. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116505054835.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Dourish, P. and Bell, G. 2014. "Resistance is futile": reading science fiction alongside ubiquitous computing. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing. 18, 4 (Apr. 2014), 769--778. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0678--7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Dunne, A. and Raby, F. 2013. Speculative everything: design, fiction, and social dreaming. MIT press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Ear Hustle: https://www.earhustlesq.com. Accessed: 2019-08--31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Entorf, H. 2009. Crime and the Labour Market: Evidence from a Survey of Inmates. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik. 229, 2--3 (Jan. 2009). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1515/jbnst-2009--2--311.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Fiedler, M. and Vogel, S. 2016. § 5 Freizeit, Medien, Sport. Jugendstrafvollzugsrecht.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Ford, M. 2019. The Everyday Brutality of America's Prisons. The New Republic.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Foucault, M. 2016. Überwachen und Strafen. Die Geburt des Gefängnisses. Kriminologische Grundlagentexte. Springer. 333--343.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Gnilka, P.B., Chang, C.Y. and Dew, B.J. 2012. The Relationship Between Supervisee Stress, Coping Resources, the Working Alliance, and the Supervisory Working Alliance. Journal of Counseling & Development. 90, 1 (Jan. 2012), 63--70. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556--6676.2012.00009.x.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Goffman, E. 2017. Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Gonzatto, R.F., van Amstel, F.M.C., Merkle, L.E. and Hartmann, T. 2013. The ideology of the future in design fictions. Digital Creativity. 24, 1 (Mar. 2013), 36--45. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2013.772524.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Hales, D. 2013. Design fictions an introduction and provisional taxonomy. Digital Creativity. 24, 1 (Mar. 2013), 1--10. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2013.769453.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Heimes, S. 2012. Warum Schreiben hilft: Die Wirksamkeitsnachweise zur Poesietherapie. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Helsper, E.J. and Eynon, R. 2013. Distinct skill pathways to digital engagement. European Journal of Communication. 28, 6 (Dec. 2013), 696--713. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323113499113.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Hinssen, P. and Chellam, M. 2010. The New Normal: Explore the limits of the digital world. Mach media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts 2017. Mental health in prisons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Jewkes, Y. and Johnston, H. 2009. "Cavemen in an Era of Speed-of-Light Technology': Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Communication within Prisons. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice. 48, 2 (May 2009), 132--143. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468--2311.2009.00559.x.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Jewkes, Y. and Reisdorf, B.C. 2016. A brave new world: The problems and opportunities presented by new media technologies in prisons. Criminology & Criminal Justice. 16, 5 (Nov. 2016), 534--551. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895816654953.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Johnson, R. 2005. Brave new prisons: The growing social isolation of modern penal institutions. The effects of imprisonment. (2005), 255--284.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Jokinen, J.P.P. 2015. Emotional user experience: Traits, events, and states?. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 76, (Apr. 2015), 67--77. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.12.006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Kirman, B., Linehan, C., Lawson, S. and O'Hara, D. 2013. CHI and the future robot enslavement of humankind: a retrospective. CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems on - CHI EA '13 (Paris, France, 2013), 2199.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Knauer, F. 2006. Strafvollzug und Internet: Rechtsprobleme der Nutzung elektronischer Kommunikationsmedien durch Strafgefangene. BWV Verlag.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Knight, V. 2017. Remote control: television in prison.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Landwehr, M., Borning, A. and Wulf, V. 2019. The High Cost of Free Services: Problems with Surveillance Capitalism and Possible Alternatives for IT Infrastructure. (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Laubenthal, K. 2015. Strafvollzug. Springer-Verlag.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Linehan, C., Kirman, B.J., Reeves, S., Blythe, M.A., Tanenbaum, J.G., Desjardins, A. and Wakkary, R. 2014. Alternate endings: using fiction to explore design futures. Proceedings of the extended abstracts of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI EA '14 (Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2014), 45--48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Markussen, T. and Knutz, E. 2013. The poetics of design fiction. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces - DPPI '13 (Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, 2013), 231.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Monteiro, A., Barros, R. and Leite, C. 2015. Lifelong learning through e-learning in european prisons: rethinking digital and social inclusion. Proceedings of INTED2015 Conference (2015), 1038--1046.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Morozov, E. 2013. To save everything, click here: the folly of technological solutionism. PublicAffairs.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Perez Serrano, G. and Sarrate Capdevila, M.L. 2011. Information and communication technologies that promote social inclusion. Revista Española de Pedagogía. 69, 249 (2011), 237--253.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Rohde, M., Brödner, P., Stevens, G., Betz, M. and Wulf, V. 2016. Grounded Design -- a praxeological IS research perspective. Journal of Information Technology. (May 2016). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2016.5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Smerotkina, K. 2010. Education as a Prerequisite for Inclusion of Prisoners in Society. ACEP/SINEX. (2010), 55.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Sterling, B. 2005. Shaping things. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Subramanian, R. and Shames, A. 2013. Sentencing and prison practices in Germany and the Netherlands: Implications for the United States. Vera Institute of Justice New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Tanenbaum, J., Tanenbaum, K. and Wakkary, R. 2012. Steampunk as design fiction. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '12 (Austin, Texas, USA, 2012), 1583.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Taugerbeck, S. 2018. Digitale Teilhabe und Strafvollzug. Eine wissenssoziologische Analyse des öffentlichen Diskurses zur Nutzung digitaler Medien durch Gefängnisinsassen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Wandels zur digitalen Wissensgesellschaft. (2018). DOI:https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.23402.82889.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Taugerbeck, S., Ahmadi, M., Schorch, M., Unbehaun, D., Aal, K. and Wulf, V. 2019. Digital Participation in Prison -- A Public Discourse Analysis of the Use of ICT by Inmates. (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Van De Steene, S. and Knight, V. 2017. Digital transformation for prisons: Developing a needs-based strategy. Probation Journal. 64, 3 (Sep. 2017), 256--268. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550517723722.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Verbaan, S., Aldington, C., McNaney, R. and Wallace, J. 2018. Potentials of HCI for Prisons and Incarcerated Individuals. Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '18 (Montreal QC, Canada, 2018), 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Verbaan, S. and Bowers, J. 2018. Building A Better Bumphone: Designing Around Prison Phone Use. Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '18 (Montreal QC, Canada, 2018), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Warren, M. 2007. The digital vicious cycle: Links between social disadvantage and digital exclusion in rural areas. Telecommunications Policy. 31, 6--7 (Jul. 2007), 374--388. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2007.04.001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Wawzyniak, H. 2012. Ist die Verweigerung eines Internetzugangs im Strafvollzug rechtmä\s sig? KritV, CritQ, RCrit. Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft/Critical Quarterly for Legislation and Law/Revue critique trimestrielle de jurisprudence et de législation. (2012), 198--208.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Wulf, V. and Rohde, M. 1995. Towards an integrated organization and technology development. Proceedings of the conference on Designing interactive systems processes, practices, methods, & techniques - DIS '95 (Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States, 1995), 55--64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Wulf, V., Rohde, M., Pipek, V. and Stevens, G. 2011. Engaging with practices: design case studies as a research framework in CSCW. Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work (2011), 505--512.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Wulf, V., Schmidt, K. and Randall, D. 2015. Designing Socially Embedded Technologies in the Real-World. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Zuboff, S. 2019. The age of surveillance capitalism: the fight for the future at the new frontier of power. Profile Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. The Social Mile - How (Psychosocial) ICT can Help to Promote Resocialization and to Overcome Prison

                  Recommendations

                  Comments

                  Login options

                  Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                  Sign in

                  Full Access

                  PDF Format

                  View or Download as a PDF file.

                  PDF

                  eReader

                  View online with eReader.

                  eReader
                  About Cookies On This Site

                  We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

                  Learn more

                  Got it!