URN:NBN:fi:tsv-oa4895 DOI: 10.11143/4895 The ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ of prisons: Carceral geography and home visits for prisoners in Finland DOMINIQUE MORAN AND ANSSI KEINÄNEN Moran, Dominique & Anssi Keinänen (2012). The ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ of pris- ons: Carceral geography and home visits for prisoners in Finland. Fennia 190: 2, pp. 62–76. ISSN 1798-5617. This paper argues that the burgeoning sub-discipline of carceral geography needs to pay particular attention to context when theorising carceral space, and that the specific context of Finland offers a new and valuable perspective. Much of the work within this new area of human geography originates in or pertains to the highly incarcerative, or ‘hypercarcerative’ contexts of the US, the UK and the Russian Federation, raising questions over the transferability of theorisations of the carceral to other less carcerative, or actively ‘de-carcerative’ settings. By fo- cussing specifically on one such setting, the low imprisonment context of Fin- land, this paper discusses Goffman’s ‘total institution’ thesis with reference to the system of ‘furloughs’ or home visits for prisoners. In this paper we explore the extent to which this practice destabilises the inside/outside binary of the ‘total institution’, through the notion of heterotopia. Keywords: carceral geography, prison, furlough, ‘total institution’, Finland Dominique Moran, School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. E-mail: d.moran@bham.ac.uk Anssi Keinänen, Department of Law, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu campus, P.Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland. E-mail: anssi.keinanen@uef.fi Introduction The term ‘carceral geography’ (Moran et al. 2012, 2013; Philo 2012) describes a new and vibrant sub-discipline of human geography research into practices of incarceration. Such work is often in- formed by and in dialogue with the work of Foucault (1979) on the development of the prison, surveillance, and the regulation of space and ‘do- cility’ of bodies, and of Agamben (1998, 2005) on the notion of a space of exception, where sover- eign power suspends the law, producing a zone of abandonment. The distinctiveness of its focus on the spaces of incarceration is, however, matched only by its tendency to draw primarily on case study examples from high imprisonment societies, and this paper argues that in theorising carceral space, carceral geography needs to be more atten- tive to the varied contexts of incarceration. The paper first discusses the tendency within carceral geography to focus on case studies from high imprisonment societies, and suggests, by dis- cussing the specific context of Finland, that the interdisciplinary dialogue emerging between carceral geography and criminology could be ex- panded to consider a more active engagement with comparative criminology. Secondly, it cri- tiques Goffman’s (1961) ‘total institution’ thesis by considering some aspects of the furlough, or home visiting scheme for prisoners in Finland, and by determining the extent to which the furlough is an example of the concept of ‘heterotopia’ (Foucault 1998) deployed by Baer and Ravneberg (2008) to understand the nature of the ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ of prisons. Carceral geography In the United States (US), Wacquant (2011: 3) has described ‘a brutal swing from the social to the penal management of poverty’. The core of Wac- FENNIA 190: 2 (2012) 63The ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ of prisons: Carceral geography and … quant’s thesis is the penalization of poverty seen in the US in recent decades. This tendency arguably extends into Western Europe and elsewhere through the exporting of US penal ideas and man- agement systems (Downes 2007: 118, in Gottschalk 2009), comprising a ‘punitive revamp- ing’ of public policy by tackling urban marginality through punitive containment. Hyperincarcera- tion, having in the United States thrown its ‘carcer- al mesh’ (Wacquant 2011: 13) around the hyper- ghetto, is argued to have established a ‘single carceral continuum’ between the ghetto and the prison system in a ‘self-perpetuating cycle of so- cial and legal marginality with devastating person- al and social consequences’ (Wacquant 2000: 384). Imprisonment rates in the United States are the highest in the world, but as Aebi and Kuhn (2000: 66, cited in von Hofer 2003: 23) point out, such rates ‘are to a great degree a function of crim- inal justice and social policies that either encour- age or discourage the use of incarceration’ rather than a function of the number of crimes which are committed. Carceral geography increasingly spans and syn- thesizes three main areas of interest; the nature of carceral spaces and experiences within them; spa- tial or distributional geographies of carceral sys- tems; and the relationship between a notion of the carceral and an increasingly punitive state. Draw- ing upon case studies from South Africa and the USA respectively, Dirsuweit (1999), and Sibley and van Hoven contest the Foucauldian regulation of prison space and the docility of bodies, describ- ing carceral ‘spaces… produced and reproduced on a daily basis’ (van Hoven & Sibley 2008: 1016), and the agency of inmates making ‘their own spaces, material and imagined’ (Sibley & van Hov- en 2009: 205). Spatial geographies of incarcera- tion have again focussed on the US, with research- ers considering the relationship between places of incarceration and the communities which host or surround them (Che 2005; Glasmeier & Farrigan 2007; Bonds 2009) extending critiques of the ‘total institution’ (Goffman 1961), and suggesting that the ‘carceral’ is something more than merely the spaces in which individuals are confined. Such a notion of the ‘carceral’ as a social construction rel- evant both within and outside physical spaces of incarceration, informs, for example, the work of Allspach (2010) on ‘transcarceral’ spaces in Cana- da, and the theorisation of the ‘carceral’ as embod- ied through the corporeal inscription of released inmates (Moran 2012a, 2013) in the Russian Fed- eration. Again in the United States, Peck (2003) and Peck and Theodore (2009) discuss the rela- tionship between prisons and the metropolis in the context of hyperincarceration. Much of this work, then, originates in or pertains to, highly incarcera- tive settings; the USA and Russian Federation have some of the world’s highest incarceration rates, of 730 and 529/100,000 respectively in 2010 (World Prison Brief 2012). Baer and Ravneberg’s work (2008) is an interest- ing example in this context, since it compares a increasingly incarcerative setting, that of the Eng- lish prison system, with the very low imprison- ment society of Norway. Baer and Ravneberg (2008) problematise the conceptualisation of a bi- nary distinction between the ‘inside’ and the ‘out- side’ of prisons, instead positing prisons as ‘hetero- topic spaces outside of and different from other spaces, but still inside the general social order’ (Baer & Ravneberg 2008: 214). Although the au- thors note that their two research contexts are dif- ferent, they stop short of elaborating very far on the marked differences between them, or suggest- ing that these differences may have implications for their theorisation of ‘inside’ and ‘outside’. This paper therefore pursues two issues raised by this work; first, the issue of the carceral context, which they obliquely raise but do not fully resolve, and second Goffman’s conceptualisation of the ‘total institution’ (1961) which they directly critique via the notion of ‘heterotopia’. The first of these is dis- cussed next, in relation to the carceral context of Finland. Finland’s penal culture Finland is an interesting case study for a number of reasons. Its relatively small prison population and diligent record-keeping enables fine grained statis- tical research to be carried out, but more impor- tantly, it differs very significantly from the research contexts which have thus far ignited geographers’ interest in incarceration – the United States and Western Europe. Whereas the United States is highly incarcerative (or perhaps hypercarcerative), other countries are by contrast decarcerative, ac- tively deploying different techniques to decrease their prison populations. Finland is one of these countries. As Lappi-Seppälä (2000) has argued, the dra- matic decrease in Finland’s prison population, from the early 1950s when its imprisonment rate 64 FENNIA 190: 2 (2012)Dominique Moran and Anssi Keinänen of 200/100,000 population was four times higher than other Nordic countries, to the situation sixty years later when its imprisonment rate is now the lowest in Scandinavia at 52/100,000, was brought about by ‘a conscious, long-term and systematic criminal policy’ (ibid. 37−38). This policy and the philosophies which underpin it are fundamentally different from those which inform criminal justice policy in, for example, the US. The 1960s and 1970s saw in Finland the re-evaluation of the the- oretical aim and the justification of punishment, with a ‘turn’ towards ‘general prevention’ rather than direct ‘deterrence’, through a ‘humane neo- classical crime policy’. General prevention essen- tially means the ‘moral-creating and value-shaping effect’ of punishment (von Hofer 2003: 28), which differs from deterrence in that individuals are not perceived to obey the law because of the direct fear of punishment, but rather because the disap- proval expressed in punishment is perceived to influence the values and moral views of individu- als through a process of internalisation of the norms of criminal law. As von Hofer (ibid.) puts it, ‘people refrain from illegal behaviour not because such behaviour would be followed by unpleasant punishment, but because the behaviour itself is re- garded as morally blameworthy’. This ‘turn’ was enabled and enacted by an exceptionally expert- oriented reform team with close professional and personal contacts between politicians, state offi- cials and academic researchers (Lappi-Seppälä 2002) in the absence of political opposition to re- form; by the ‘attitudinal readiness’ of the Finnish judiciary to adopt a new sentencing policy (von Hofer 2003: 31); and by the ‘fairly sober and rea- sonable attitude towards issues of criminal policy’ (Lappi-Seppälä 2000: 37−38) adopted by the Finn- ish media. In a broader context, for much of this period of decarceration, Finland was not a desti- nation for significant immigrant movement, and was additionally insulated from international trade in narcotics, two major influences on prison popu- lations (Christie 2000). What this essentially means is that Finland has for decades been decoupled from the US (and in- creasingly the European) tendency to politicize criminal justice policy to the extent that criminal justice becomes a political tool rather than a bal- anced assessment of criminal justice interventions. As Lappi-Seppälä (2002: 33) observes, in these contexts ‘the higher the level of political authority, the more simplistic the approaches advocated. The results can be seen in slogans that are com- pressed into two or three words, including “prison works”, “war on drugs” and “zero tolerance”’ which in turn leads politicians to ‘pander to puni- tive (or presumably punitive) public opinion with harsh tough-on-crime campaigns’. Although Fin- land has perhaps reached its lowest possible im- prisonment rate, with the result that rates will al- most certainly rise, and the Finnish media is be- coming more active in debating criminal justice policy, the ‘humane neoclassical crime policy’ continues to prevail; prison is not considered to “work” and the solutions to social problems are not ‘sought where they cannot be found – the pe- nal system’ (ibid. 33). In the Finnish system, then, it may be argued that prison policy is informed more by an understanding of the likely success of specific interventions for the stated aims of incar- ceration, than by a political imperative to respond to public opinion, or as Gilmore (2002: 16) has argued, to use the prison system as ‘a project of state-building’. The philosophy towards the conditions of im- prisonment in Finland is displayed in The Sentenc- es Enforcement Act1 which states that Punishment is a mere loss of liberty: The enforce- ment of sentence must be organised so that the sentence is only loss of liberty. Other restrictions can be used to the extent that the security of cus- tody and the prison order require. Prevention of harm, promoting of placement into society: Punishment shall be enforced so that it does not unnecessarily impede but, if possible, promotes a prisoner’s placement in society. Harms caused by imprisonment must be prevented, if possible. Normality: The circumstances in a penal institu- tion must be organised so that they correspond to those prevailing in the rest of society. Justness, respect for human dignity, prohibition of discrimination: Prisoners must be treated justly and respecting their human dignity. In essence, this means that the ‘less eligibility’ principle that informs much prison policy in the US and Western Europe, that prisoners should ‘suf- fer’ in prison, not only through the loss of freedom but also by virtue of prison conditions, which should be of a worse standard than those available to the poorest free workers, is absent in Finland (Pratt & Eriksson 2011). Instead, prison conditions are to correspond as closely as possible to living conditions in society (Ministry of Justice 1975), with the intention that penalties for offences are FENNIA 190: 2 (2012) 65The ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ of prisons: Carceral geography and … implemented in such a way that they do not un- duly interfere with prisoners’ participation in soci- ety, but as far as possible, promote it. Pursuing the second issue raised by Baer and Ravneberg’s (2008) work, we next consider cri- tiques of Goffman’s conceptualisation of the ‘total institution’ (1961) which they directly critique via the notion of ‘heterotopia’. The ‘total institution’ Goffman’s (1961) theorisation of the ‘total institu- tion’ has been an influential piece of work, which since its publication has seen the concept of a ‘to- tal institution’, defined as …a place of residence and work where a large number of like-situated individuals, cut off from the wider society for an appreciable length of time, together lead an enclosed, formally admin- istered round of life (Goffman 1961: 11). The concept has been applied to an extraordinar- ily diverse range of circumstances and contexts, such as homes for the elderly (e.g. Mali 2008), psychiatric units (Skorpen et al. 2008), the home (Noga 1991), the mass media (Altheide 1991), the military and the police (Rosenbloom 2011), and sport (Cavalier 2011). While the concept has thereby been shown to have considerable utility, its appropriateness as a means of understanding the types of institution in relation to which it was initially developed has been called into question. For the purposes of this paper, it is the applicability of the ‘total institu- tion’ thesis to the institution of the prison which is most salient, and in this context, there are a number of commentaries which point out some disjunctures between the theory and the actuality of imprisonment. Perhaps the most thorough treatment was that of Farrington (1992: 6), who problematised Goffman’s theorisation by arguing compellingly in relation to the US prison system that the ‘total institution’ thesis is ‘in fact, fairly inaccurate as a portrayal of the structure and functioning of the... correctional institution’ in that the modern prison ‘is not as completely or effectively “cut off from wider society” as Goff- man’s description might lead us to believe’. Al- though Farrington (1992) addressed his comments explicitly to this geographical context, and per- haps interpreted Goffman rather too literally, many of his observations are generically applica- ble to prison systems more generally, and they bear some exploration here. The core of Farrington’s (1992) commentary is that prison institutions have a relatively stable and ongoing network of transactions, exchanges and relationships which connect and bind them to their immediate host community and to society more generally (ibid. 7). Although at the time of writing Farrington (1992) observed that relatively little research had explored these connections, such as the relationships between prisons and their host communities, the process of prison sit- ing, and the relationships between criminal of- fenders and the society from which they have come, in the intervening years these topics have come more clearly into view in academic scholar- ship, and particularly in the recent development of carceral geography which has considered precise- ly these issues. The relationship between prisons and wider society has been a particular focus of study (e.g. Peck 2003; Peck & Theodore 2009). Rather than rejecting Goffman’s thesis, Farrington (1992: 7) essentially extends and develops the no- tion of the prison as a ‘total institution’ by propos- ing a theoretical conception of ‘a “not-so-total” institution, enclosed within an identifiable-yet- permeable membrane of structures, mechanisms and policies, all of which maintain, at most, a se- lective and imperfect degree of separation be- tween what exists inside of and what lies beyond prison walls.’ Subsequent studies support this no- tion, with, for example, Hartman (2000) discuss- ing the restriction of prisoner access to the internet in the language of ‘walls and firewalls’. Although Farrington (1992) identifies ‘points of interpenetration’ through which the prison and wider society intrude into and intersect with one another, his critique stops short of that of Baer and Ravneberg (2008) who problematise the concep- tualisation of a binary distinction between ‘inside’ and ‘outside’. Instead they posit the concept of heterotopia, viewing prisons as ‘heterotopic spac- es outside of and different from other spaces, but still inside the general social order’ (Baer & Ravneberg 2008: 214), which they argue renders problematic the separation of inside from outside. They build on Foucault’s work, in which he char- acterised heterotopias as ‘real places, actual plac- es, places that are designed into the very institu- tion of society’ (1998: 178) but which can seem totally unrelated to one another despite existing side by side. In so doing, they rely particularly on Genocchio’s (1995) observation that heterotopias 66 FENNIA 190: 2 (2012)Dominique Moran and Anssi Keinänen are ‘outside’ of and fundamentally different to all other spaces, but also relate to and exist within general social space that distinguishes their mean- ing as difference. Baer and Ravneberg (2008) ar- gue that the concept of heterotopia allows for a fuller understanding of the spatial complexities of the prison environment than the total institution thesis which distinguishes between inside and out- side with very little room for blurring of this bound- ary. In their comparison of English and Norwegian prisons, they found what they described as ‘in- compatible juxtapositions’ (ibid. 212), in which there were ‘multiple, simultaneous distinctions and indistinctions’ between the inside and outside of prisons, rather than a set of neat binaries (i.e. inside/outside). They described that they ‘sensed a lack of delineation between inside and outside at the same time that there was sharp distinction within prison’ (ibid. 213), and that prison seemed ‘to be a compressed mélange of seemingly incom- patible juxtapositions’ (ibid.) with ‘tension and fu- sion between inside and outside’ (ibid. 214) These ‘incompatible juxtapositions’ derive from Baer and Ravneberg’s personal impressions of en- tering and leaving English and Norwegian prisons, or in Farrington’s (1992) terms, their individual ‘in- terpenetration’ of the penitentiary wall from a po- sition on the ‘outside’. Other work within carceral geography (Moran 2012b) which challenges the total institution thesis has also considered the crossing of this assumed boundary from outside to inside, with prison visitors entering visiting spaces ‘inside’ the prison walls, and has considered the sense in which prisoners coming to meet them ex- perience something of the ‘outside’ via this con- tact. In this paper, however, we explore the oppo- site direction of movement; prisoners from ‘inside’ going ‘outside’ the prison, through the practice of home visits or furloughs, and consider the extent to which this practice destabilises the inside/out- side binary through the notion of heterotopia. Theorising prison visiting and furlough schemes Research into furloughs is part of a wider body of work, largely within criminology, but also prison sociology and more recently carceral geography, which explores prison visitation as a space of in- terpenetration between ‘outside’ and ‘inside’, and which considers the significance of visitation for wider penological concerns such as recidivism, or reoffending after release, and the ‘collateral’ effect of imprisonment for prisoners’ friends and family. Research into prison visiting per se has tended to orient itself around two foci – the effects of visi- tation on prisoners and their subsequent behav- iour, especially after release, and the collateral ef- fects of imprisonment on inmates’ family mem- bers, mitigated to some extent by visiting as means of maintaining contact. Considering first the effects of visitation on pris- oners, criminologists studying recidivism find that prison visitation is a significant factor in improving post-release outcomes. Holt and Miller (1972) showed that parole outcomes were much more positive for visited prisoners, and lower recidivism rates have since been demonstrated across study populations and time periods. However, although the effect is widely observed, the causality is poor- ly understood. It is presumed that the maintenance of personal relationships and the feeling of ‘con- nectedness’ to home and community which may arise through visitation smooth reintegration after release, but this process has never been fully ex- plored. The recent work of social theorists and ge- ographers such as Gilmore (2007), Peck and Theo- dore (2009) and Wacquant (2010a, 2010b, 2010c), in the United States, in the context of calls for greater attention to the causes of and solutions to hyperincarceration (Wacquant 2010b: 74) and the carceral ‘churn’ (Peck & Theodore 2009: 251), has been paralleled within criminology by reconsid- eration of the positive effect of visitation. Empirical studies by Bales and Mears (2008), Derkzen et al. (2009), Berg and Huebner (2010) and Mears et al. (2011) still observe a positive effect, but emphasise its complexity. They draw attention to the effects of visitation of different types and in varying amounts, and on various types of recidivism (Mears et al. 2011), and stress the need for further empirical work to develop a more nuanced under- standing of visitation. Bales and Mears (2008, also Mears et al. 2011) suggest that future studies should use different, more refined measures to en- gage with effects of specific types of visit (such as by spouses, children, criminal associates), or na- ture of visits (consistent or inconsistent during a sentence, characterised by calm and supportive conversations, or by argument and recrimination) in order to better understand the dynamics of visi- tation. Before this recent rekindling of interest in visita- tion, the conclusion that prison inmates visited during imprisonment ‘do better’ on release re- FENNIA 190: 2 (2012) 67The ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ of prisons: Carceral geography and … mained relatively unchallenged for almost forty years. Coupled with an increasing awareness of and concern for prisoner rights and welfare, this relationship formed the basis for policy recom- mendations encouraging increased numbers and frequency of visits, with greater capacity, longer hours, more programmes to encourage visitors, and to mitigate against the factors discouraging visiting, for example the cost of travel (Schafer 1994). Given this consensus of opinion, academic attention veered away from prisoners’ responses to visitation, towards the second focus, on the wider effects of incarceration. The work of Morris (1965) was precursor to an explosion of interest, particu- larly in the US, broadly in parallel with the growth of mass imprisonment (Garland 2001), in ‘second- ary’ or ‘collateral’ effects of imprisonment. These range from those impacting directly on prisoners’ families and children (e.g. Casey-Acevedo & Bakken 2008; Comfort 2002, 2003, 2007, 2008; Codd 2007, 2008; Hong-Chui 2010; Wildeman & Western 2010; Comfort et al. 2011; Geller et al. 2011; Kruttschnitt 2011; Shedd 2011), to commu- nity effects on labour market participation, civic engagement, and community health (Garland 2001; Lynch & Sabol 2003). Rose and Clear (1998, 2003, and Clear 2007) have written about the stig- matisation of communities with high levels of both imprisonment and subsequent re-entry of released prisoners, with parents raising their children in ar- eas with little social control, ambivalent attitudes to law enforcement and public authority, and in which incarceration becomes a way of life (Breen 2010). Wacquant (2010a: 611) argues that prison- ers in the US do not, in fact, ‘re-enter’ society after release, instead circulating between the two poles of ‘a continuum of forced confinement formed by the prison and... the metropolis’. Relatively overlooked in this literature on prison visiting is the ‘home visit’ or ‘furlough’, in which rather than have family and friends enter the pris- on complex to visit them, prisoners are granted permission to leave the prison and visit relatives and friends outside, for a specified and restricted length of time. Scholarship of furloughs is relative- ly limited, and as Baumer et al. (2009) have noted, recent research has tended to focus on primarily descriptive studies which identify categories of prisoner least likely to be granted a furlough, or those who are most likely to return to the prison late or not at all (e.g. Cheliotis 2005; Cid 2005). Some earlier work, followed up by Baumer et al. (2009), considered the functionality of furloughs in easing re-entry after a period of incarceration (Jeffrey & Woolpert 1974), finding that prisoners granted release from prison for vocational or fami- ly-related purposes were significantly less likely to be reimprisoned up to four years after the end of their sentence. Drawing further upon the example of furloughs in Ireland, O’Donnell and Jewkes (2011: 75) note that decisions about permitting prisoners home leave in the UK and Ireland ‘pro- vide insights into divergent penal policies and contrasting socio-cultural attitudes towards pris- oners and imprisonment’, and they raise questions about the interplay between penal policy in as- sessing prisoners’ eligibility for furlough, and pub- lic opinion and justice policy as political instru- ment, particularly in the UK where tabloid press coverage of ‘temporary release’ tends to promote a sense of prisoners as ‘undeserving’ and ‘pampered’ (ibid. 89). Although these studies of furloughs pro- vide fascinating insights into the functioning of systems of home leave, rarely are theorisations of furloughs offered, in relation to the significance of the movement of prisoners out of prison, rather than the movement of visitors in. This paper therefore presents empirical material generated in relation to furloughs in Finland, con- sidering the extent to which this practice challeng- es the ‘total institution’ thesis, and the usefulness of the notion of heterotopia in understanding it. These data are analysed and interpreted in relation to two queries; firstly, the extent to which the prac- tice of furlough in Finland constitutes an ‘interpen- etration’ of the boundary of the ‘total institution’, and secondly, the extent to which the notion of heterotopia assists in understanding the granting and breaching of furlough. Using this data we ask whether furloughs could be interpreted as an ex- ample of a heterotopic space, simultaneously ‘in- side’ and ‘outside’ the prison, just as the prison it- self is simultaneously ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ the general social order. Methodology Data presented in this paper were generated by analysis of two datasets collected for the Finnish Criminal Sanctions Agency, which operates under the Ministry of Justice’s Criminal Policy Depart- ment, and oversees the Probation Service and the Prison Service. Data pertain to the granting and breaching of furlough, or home leave, for prison- ers in Finland. 68 FENNIA 190: 2 (2012)Dominique Moran and Anssi Keinänen The first dataset presented here (Table 1) com- prises a 100% sample of the applications for fur- lough in 2008, analysed to determine the factors which contributed to successful applications. Data were analysed by logistic regression to produce correlation coefficients with p-values to indicate statistical significance, and odds ratios which can be interpreted as marginal effects. Emboldened coefficients indicate a statistically significant re- sult, at a 5% level (p<0.05), or a moderately statis- tically significant result (where the p-value is in the range of 0.05-0.1). The second dataset (Table 2) pertains to furloughs undertaken between October 2006 and January 2009, in terms of the types of breaches of furlough conditions recorded, and the contributory factors identified for these breaches. Breach of furlough is defined as late return to pris- on, or positive test for a banned substance on re- turn. These data were again analysed to produce correlation coefficients, p-values and marginal im- pacts or relative risks (RR); with bold text again highlighting statistically significant results. In this table, the relative risks represent the factor by which risk of breach of furlough is higher than the average or comparator. In addition to the statistical data, structured interviews were carried out with prison personnel involved in the furlough system, to illuminate the findings of the statistical research. The granting and breaching of furloughs in Finland If a prisoner furloughed in Finland complies with leave conditions, then the time spent on leave is considered to count towards the sentence served. In granting furlough, then, the Finnish prison au- thorities are effectively selecting prisoners to serve periods of their sentences outside of the prison. Prisoners residing in Finland’s 26 prisons (12 of which are open prisons) are eligible to apply for furlough once two thirds of their sentence has been served, or after half has been served if this is specified in an individual prisoner’s sentence plan (i.e. the intentions for the prisoner’s rehabilitation), or if home leave is required for a particularly ur- gent personal reason. Furlough can be granted for spells of two hours up to three to four days in eve- ry two month period, and the travel costs incurred during furlough can be reimbursed from State funds in certain cases. The movement of prisoners outside of the prison to undertake home visits is a systemic and relatively uncontroversial aspect of imprisonment in Finland, and a relative common- place for many Finnish prisoners; in 2008 11,312 furloughs were undertaken, an average of three per prisoner. In the context of the ‘total institution’, it would seem that this prison boundary is particu- larly porous, that most Finnish prisoners are not as ‘cut off’ from the wider society as Goffman’s (1961) thesis would seem to suggest, and that according- ly, the inside/outside binary might be a problem- atic notion in this context. However, even if this challenge to the ‘total institution’ thesis is fairly clearcut, understanding the significance of the granting and breaching of furlough is more com- plex. Finland’s total prison population in 2008 was 3,5262, serving sentences on average of nine months duration. From this prison population there were 15,257 applications for furlough. Of these, 3,897 were refused, and 11,336 granted, giving a ‘success rate’ of around 74%, with the possibility both of multiple applications from, and multiple furloughs taken by, individual prisoners. As Keinänen et al. (2010) have noted in a report for the Criminal Sanctions Agency, the likelihood of a successful application for furlough depends on a number of different factors, a selection of which are shown in Table 1, and these shed some light on the functionality of the furlough in the eyes of those selecting candidates. The ‘marginal effect’ describes by how many percentage points the predicted probability would change if the in- dependent variable changed. In other words, con- sidering, for example, the probability of being granted furlough by age group, regression analysis shows that for prisoners aged 50 and over, in com- parison with the 17−21 age group, the probability of being granted furlough was almost eleven per- centage points higher. Prisoners who had served nine or more previous sentences were three per- centage points less likely to be granted furlough than those with no previous sentences, women were five percentage points more likely to be granted furlough than men, and so on. Although furlough is relatively common, access to it is strictly controlled, through an application process. The space of furlough could be conceptu- alised as heterotopic; a simultaneous distinction and indistinction of inside and outside; a space outside the prison which offers freedom from carceral control, but to which access is strictly controlled by the penal authorities. The granting of furlough is case-specific, with individual applications considered in relation to FENNIA 190: 2 (2012) 69The ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ of prisons: Carceral geography and … Table 1. Prisoner characteristics and the granting of Furlough in 2008. Characteristic Number of applications % of total % granted furlough Coefficient p–value Marginal effect Age Group 17–21 249 1.66 69.8 – – – 21–25 1395 9.32 70.4 0.498 0.007 6.5 25–30 2757 18.2 73.0 0.718 0.000 9.24 30–40 5176 34.58 73.4 0.716 0.000 9.95 40–50 3627 24.23 78.9 0.886 0.000 11.42 50+ 1763 11.78 80.1 0.895 0.000 10.65 Previous prison sentences 0 5756 37.7 79.7 – – – 1–2 3493 22.9 71.8 –0.126 0.047 –1.91 3–8 4610 30.2 71.9 –0.091 0.153 –1.37 9+ 1398 9.2 67.5 –0.211 0.021 –3.32 Gender Men 14289 93.7 74.0 – – – Women 968 6.3 80.0 0.372 0.009 4.99 Nationality Finnish national 14163 92.8 74.7 – – – Non–Finnish national 1095 7.2 70.2 –0.571 0.000 –9.84 Marital Status Married 3662 24.0 77.0 – – – Unmarried 7686 50.4 72.1 –0.162 0.006 –2.42 Divorced/Widowed 3780 24.8 77.0 –0.104 0.120 –1.57 Unknown 127 0.8 62.2 –0.359 0.132 –5.95 Type of offence Thefts 1744 11.5 67.6 –0.393 0.000 –6.43 Other property crime 770 5.1 76.9 –0.365 0.010 –6.02 Murder, manslaughter (or attempted) 3092 20.4 81.7 0.203 0.084 2.91 Other violent crime 2753 18.2 71.6 –0.301 0.005 –4.75 Sexual crime 477 3.1 76.3 –0.251 0.132 –4.02 Other crime based on the criminal law 1023 6.7 74.7 –0.358 0.006 –5.86 Drug crime 3114 20.5 76.2 –0.192 0.078 –2.96 Drunk driving 1080 7.1 63.3 –0.614 0.000 –10.69 Other crimes 127 0.8 76.2 –0.592 0.030 –10.46 Civilian criminal offence 157 1.0 91.7 0.408 0.216 5.33 Previous disciplinary offences in prison 0 12189 79.9 77.2 1 1590 10.4 64.8 –0.556 0.000 –9.45 2–4 1351 8.9 62.4 –0.635 0.000 –11.04 5+ 127 0.8 52.0 –0.804 0.000 –14.97 Source: Keinänen et al. 2010: 46−54, 74. 70 FENNIA 190: 2 (2012)Dominique Moran and Anssi Keinänen prisoners’ sentence plans. Factors taken into ac- count include the nature of the offence commit- ted, and the risk of breach of furlough conditions, a judgement based on the number of previous suc- cessful or breached furloughs, the perceived risk of recidivism, any records of attempted escapes or unauthorised leave, and any record of participa- tion in (either positive or negative) activities out- side prison. According to this data, when granting access to the ‘outside’ of the prison, the penal au- thorities rewarded prisoners’ ‘docility’, in terms of their compliance with the carceral regime during incarceration. In deciding which prisoners would be allowed to traverse the boundary of the prison ‘proper’, they tended to reward good behaviour in prison, with inmates who had committed five or more disciplinary offences during incarceration being nearly 15 percentage points less likely to be granted furlough, and those having committed only one offence still at a disadvantage of nine percentage points. The data presented in Table 1 also reveal a tendency for penal authorities to view older prisoners, first-time inmates, women, Finnish nationals, and married prisoners more fa- vourably when granting furlough. Although these categories do not map directly onto prisoner be- haviour, they suggest that the penal authorities perceived a lower degree of risk of breach of fur- lough conditions on the part of older prisoners, generally considered to pose less of a security risk (Snyder et al. 2009), alongside ‘lower-risk’ offend- ers such as those serving a sentence for the first time, home nationals rather than foreign immi- grants, and those who were married and might therefore be perceived to ‘comply’ with societal ‘norms’. This suggests that in the selection process, penal authorities attempt, in the context of the fur- lough, to blur the distinction between the inside and the outside of the prison, by selecting candi- dates who they perceive to be more likely to sus- tain the good behaviour demonstrated inside the prison, on the outside. In so doing, one could ar- gue that they attempt to hold the outside and in- side in tension and fusion with one another, grant- ing access to the outside on the basis of good be- haviour, and encouraging the translocation of ‘do- cility’ demonstrated inside the prison, into the world outside. Or in other words, that they attempt to create, through the case-by-case selection of prisoners for furlough, a space that is simultane- ously ‘outside’ of the prison, but which when properly observed, exists both ‘within’ the prison (since the prison sentence continues to be served), and within the general social order of the ‘outside’ (after Genocchio 1995, in Baer & Ravneberg 2008). The extremely low rate of breach of furlough conditions in Finland (less than five percent across the entire prison population) suggests that this se- lection procedure is relatively successful, allowing only those prisoners at low risk of breach to en- gage in home leave. Further analysis of the dataset attempted to identify the relative risk of breaches of furlough conditions according to different pris- oner characteristics, to see if selection criteria and risk of violation corresponded with one another. Some of these findings bear out the judgements of the panels granting furlough, about the likelihood of breach, but some call them into question. Older prisoners were more likely to be granted furlough, and Table 2 shows that the likelihood of breaching furlough for the over-50s is 0.35 times (or 65% less than) that of 17−21 year olds. Likewise, judge- ments based on disciplinary record in prison are supported by the finding that prisoners who have committed two to four disciplinary offences during imprisonment are 1.5 times more likely to breach furlough than those with a clean record. Unmar- ried prisoners are 1.6 times more likely to violate the rules than married inmates, and recidivists are both less likely to be granted furlough, and more likely to violate it. However, other findings suggest that the selec- tion panels’ judgements on risk of furlough breach are not supported by the evidence of the likeli- hood of violation. Women, for example, are five percentage points more likely than men to be granted furlough, but 1.78 times as likely to breach the conditions of the home visit. Although violent criminals are 4.75 percentage points less likely to be granted furlough, they are statistically no more likely to breach its conditions. Foreign citizens are almost ten percentage points less likely to be granted leave, but no more likely to breach it than home nationals. Prisoner behaviour during fur- lough seems, therefore, to be rather unpredictable, and the selection process may not entirely account for the low overall rate of furlough violation. Another explanatory factor could perhaps be that the systems put in place to monitor furloughs serve to successfully deter prisoners from commit- ting violations, and to maintain the heterotopic nature of these spaces. Specific techniques of dis- cipline are deployed, which recall or replicate some of the systems of control used within the prison. These techniques act directly on the body FENNIA 190: 2 (2012) 71The ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ of prisons: Carceral geography and … Table 2. Prisoner characteristic and the breach of furlough conditions, 2006−2009. Characteristic Coefficient p–value Marginal impact RR Age Group 21–25 –0.135 0.745 –0.39 0.87 25–30 –0.491 0.229 –1.31 0.61 30–40 –0.533 0.188 –1.52 0.59 40–50 –0.698 0.092 –1.86 0.50 50+ –1.051 0.018 –2.31 0.35 Previous prison sentences 1–2 0.276 0.051 0.91 1.32 3–8 0.532 0.000 1.82 1.70 9+ 0.539 0.006 2.05 1.71 Gender Women 0.576 0.056 2.25 1.78 Nationality Non–Finnish national 0.274 0.227 0.94 1.31 Marital Status Unmarried 0.459 0.001 1.43 1.58 Divorced/widow 0.514 0.001 1.78 1.67 No information 0.249 0.699 0.86 1.28 Type of offence Thefts 0.147 0.479 0.48 1.16 Other property crime –0.217 0.471 –0.61 0.8 Murder, manslaughter (or attempted) –0.403 0.074 –1.12 0.67 Other violent crime –0.089 0.661 –0.26 0.92 Sexual crime –0.391 0.330 –1.01 0.68 Other crime based on the criminal law –0.148 0.593 –0.43 0.86 Drug crime –0.458 0.039 –1.25 0.63 Drunk driving 0.741 0.001 3.12 2.1 Other crimes –0.076 0.906 –0.23 0.93 Lifer 0.055 0.864 0.17 1.06 Previous disciplinary offences in prison 1 0.307 0.047 1.06 1.36 2–4 0.426 0.009 1.56 1.53 5+ 0.714 0.152 3.08 2.04 Un/Supervised Furlough with a guard –2.675 0.000 –3.21 0.07 Source: Keinänen et al. 2010: 46−54, 74. of the prisoner, requiring physical examination to check for substance abuse, and demanding certain actions on the part of the furloughed inmate in or- der to comply with regulations. In some cases they act to punctuate the prisoner’s passage between inside and outside and back again, highlighting the sharp distinction with the prison. For example, breathalyser and urine tests are administered be- fore prisoners leave the institution, and again when they return, marking their corporeal exit 72 FENNIA 190: 2 (2012)Dominique Moran and Anssi Keinänen from and entry to the prison. However, whilst out- side the prison, mobile phones are monitored, with calls from the prison expected to be an- swered, and requirements to call the prison at set times of day. In some circumstances, furloughed prisoners are also expected to report to local po- lice stations to undergo breath tests. Prisoners whose offences relate to child protection are es- corted on furlough by prison guards, who them- selves embody the disciplinary regime of the pris- on, beyond the prison walls. In this way the tech- niques of discipline also serve to blur or obscure the delineation between inside and outside. The furlough thus becomes a heterotopic, quasi- carceral space outside of the prison; access to the ‘outside’ is not only strictly controlled by the penal authorities’ selection procedures, but the ‘outside’ is actively surveilled and prisoners on furlough are constantly reminded of their incarcerated status. Interviews with prison personnel question the effectiveness of these techniques of discipline for maintaining the juxtaposition of inside and outside during furlough. Some did feel that the technical measures had some kind of deterrent effect, but others took the view that these measures only made proving a violation easier, and did not of themselves prevent it from happening. We may ar- gue, therefore, that the low rate of breach of fur- lough is due to the internalisation of the carceral regime, as inmates operate the self-discipline or self-surveillance described by Foucault (1979) as the mechanism through which disciplinary power or biopower produces ‘docile’ bodies within the carceral institution. This internalisation is repre- sented by good behaviour on the part of prisoners, and operates in two ways in relation to furlough. First, this internalisation is rewarded through the selection process; the penal authorities select ‘docile’ prisoners, viewed as pliant and most likely to maintain self-discipline, to ensure that furlough is properly observed as a space that is simultane- ously ‘outside’ of the prison, but also ‘within’ the prison for the purposes of discipline and the con- tiguous serving of sentences. These individuals are least likely to take advantage of the indistinction of furlough, by acting as if they were ‘free’; rather re- taining a sense of their incarceration and thereby complying with regulations. Second, even in spac- es ‘outside’ the prison walls, these furloughed in- mates continue to operate the self-regulation learned ‘inside’, complying with furlough condi- tions and returning to prison sober and on time more than ninety-five percent of the time. Conclusion This paper opened with a critique of the relatively narrow empirical focus of carceral geography, drawing attention to its concentration thus far on highly incarcerative contexts, such as the US, UK and Russia, and suggesting that much could be gained from considering different types of penal regime, such as the low imprisonment context of Finland. It then moved to a summary of critical commentary on Goffman’s (1961) total institution thesis, drawing particularly on the work of Baer and Ravneberg (2008) who questioned the inside/ outside binary of the total institution through a consideration of the notion of heterotopia to de- scribe the multiple simultaneous distinctions and indistinctions, and incompatible juxtapositions between inside and outside. By positing the prac- tice of furloughs or home visits for prisoners in Fin- land as an example of the porosity of the prison boundary, the paper argued that the granting and breaching of furloughs could be interpreted as an example of such a heterotopic space, simultane- ously within and outside the prison, just as the prison itself is simultaneously within and outside the general social order. However, we also argue that the context of in- carceration is key. Although Baer and Ravneberg (2008) provide a thoughtful and informative theo- risation of the inside and outside of prisons which critiques the total institution, and which can be usefully applied to Finnish furloughs, in their own work their focus is turned away from their com- parative contexts of England and Norway. We ar- gue here that the specific carceral context of Fin- land matters very much. As discussed earlier, the Finnish prison system is not intentionally punitive – it aims to treat individuals on a case-by-case ba- sis and to develop a ‘moral-creating and value- shaping effect’ (von Hofer 2003: 28), based not on punishment or fear of punishment, but by influ- encing individuals’ values and moral views. Im- portantly, it aims to minimise the differences be- tween living standards in prison and on the out- side, by ensuring that loss of liberty is the only ‘punishment’ suffered. The philosophy that under- lies this decarcerative penal system, in which more than a quarter of prisoners are held in open prisons, is that even though imprisonment is in- tended to include the ‘punishment’ of loss of lib- erty, the harm caused by this loss is also to be mitigated as far as possible, by providing support for prisoner adaptation, in the form of educational FENNIA 190: 2 (2012) 73The ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ of prisons: Carceral geography and … and work programmes, probationary release prior to the end of sentences, parole, and home leave, or furlough. Furloughs are provided for in Chapter 14 of the Finnish Penal Code, and are specifically intended to support the maintenance of prisoners’ social contacts, and contact with wider society, and thereby to reduce the harm caused by loss of liberty. In this context, where conditions ‘inside’ prison are intended to mirror those ‘outside’ as closely as possible, where considerable efforts are made to maintain prisoners’ social contacts, and where every year the prison boundary is traversed thousands of times by prisoners on home leave, we might expect the ‘total institution’ as common- ly characterised, to fit particularly poorly. In Fin- land, furloughs can be described as heterotopic spaces, simultaneously within and outside the prison, perhaps because in Finland prison itself occupies a space which whilst necessarily ‘out- side’ the general social order, is also intentionally designed to be very firmly ‘within’ it, in relation to the stated intention of the Finnish system that im- prisonment, should not unduly interfere with pris- oners’ participation in society, but should as far as possible promote it. The developing sub-discipline of carceral geog- raphy is in active dialogue with more longstanding disciplines engaged with the study of incarcera- tion, and we argue here that comparative criminal justice, the study of ‘what people and institutions in different places do – and should do – about crime problems’ (Nelken 2010: 1) could be par- ticularly informative. Human geography continu- ally holds in tension the generic and the specific; an imperative to theorise with an awareness of lo- cal contingency. Comparative criminal justice similarly tries to consider carceral practices in one place in the light of those in another in order to move towards a more holistic understanding of how crime and its control are connected, and to assist in formulating and testing explanatory hy- potheses, and generating transcultural knowledge. In expanding its reach beyond hypercarcerative settings, carceral geography could benefit from an interdisciplinary dialogue with comparative crimi- nology. The current focus within carceral geogra- phy on highly incarcerative contexts such as the US and Russian Federation, while offering useful insights into the functioning of these carceral sys- tems and experiences within them, is at risk of en- couraging theorisation about carceral systems in general, based on these highly specific settings, and to the exclusion of alternative perspectives and contexts. Whilst considering and comparing different carceral contexts is a challenging pros- pect, particularly given the frequently cited diffi- culties of access to prisons and criminal justice systems, we argue here that carceral geography need not start ab initio; prison scholarship recog- nises that punishment and crime have little to do with one another, and has developed persuasive accounts not only of the workings of criminal jus- tice systems in different places, but of the making of sense of these systems, and the role of research- ers in constructing discourses about them. With this in mind, we would encourage geographers working in incarceration to pursue actively inter- disciplinary engagements with carceral space, and in particular to draw upon these comparative criminological literatures. NOTES 1 http://www.rikosseuraamus.fi/14994.htm accessed 02/02/2012. 2 Average daily prison population in 2008 (Criminal Sanctions Agency 2008: 15). REFERENCES Aebi MF & Kuhn A 2000. Influences on the prisoner rate: Number of entries into prison, length of sen- tences and crime rate. European Journal on Crim- inal Policy and Research 8, 65−75. http://dx.doi. org/10.1023%2FA%3A1008753330678. Agamben G 1998. Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Agamben G 2005. State of exception. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Allspach A 2010. Landscapes of (neo)liberal control: the transcarceral spaces of federally sentenced women in Canada. Gender, Place & Culture 17: 6, 705−723. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09663 69X.2010.517021. Altheide DL 1991. The mass media as a total institu- tion. Communications 16: 1, 63–72. http://dx.doi. org/10.1515%2Fcomm.1991.16.1.63. Baer LD & Ravneberg B 2008. The outside and inside in Norwegian and English prisons. Geografiska Annaler B 90: 2, 205−216. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111%2Fj.1468-0467.2008.00287.x. Bales WD & Mears DP 2008. Inmate social ties and the transition to society: Does visitation reduce recidivism? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 45: 3, 287−321. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177%2F0022427808317574. 74 FENNIA 190: 2 (2012)Dominique Moran and Anssi Keinänen Baumer EP, O’Donnell I & Hughes N 2009. The po- rous prison: A note on the rehabilitative potential of visits home. The Prison Journal 89: 1, 119−126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F0032885508330430. Berg MT & Huebner BM 2010. Reentry and the ties that bind: An examination of social ties, employ- ment and recidivism. Justice Quarterly 28: 2, 382−410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F074188 25.2010.498383. Bonds A 2009. Discipline and devolution: Construc- tions of poverty, race and criminality in the poli- tics of rural prison development. Antipode 41: 3, 416−438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467- 8330.2009.00681.x. Breen J 2010. Secondary effects of imprisonment: The new direction of prison research. Irish Proba- tion Journal 7, 46−64. Casey-Acevedo K & Bakken T 2008. Visiting women in prison. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 34: 3, 67−83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300%2FJ076v 34n03_05. Cavalier ES 2011. Men at sport: Gay men’s experi- ences in the sport workplace. Journal of Homo- sexuality 58: 5, 626−646. http://dx.doi.org/10.10 80%2F00918369.2011.563662. Che D 2005. Constructing a prison in the forest: Con- flicts over nature, paradise and identity. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95: 4, 809−831. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467- 8306.2005.00488.x. Cheliotis LK 2005. The prison furlough programme in Greece: Findings from a research project in the Male Prison of Korydallos. Punishment & Society 7: 2, 201−215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F1462 474505050443. Christie N 2000. Crime control as industry: Towards gulags, Western style. 3rd ed. Routledge, London. Cid J 2005. The penitentiary system in Spain: The use of imprisonment, living conditions and rehabilita- tion. Punishment & Society 7: 2, 147−166. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F1462474505050439. Clear TR 2007. Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighbor- hoods worse. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Codd H 2007. Prisoners’ families and resettlement: A critical analysis. The Howard Journal 46: 3, 255−263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1468- 2311.2007.00472.x. Codd H 2008. In the shadow of prison: Families, im- prisonment and criminal justice. Willan, Portland. Comfort M 2002. ‘Papa’s house’. The prison as do- mestic and social satellite. Ethnography 3: 4, 467−499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F14661 38102003004017. Comfort M 2003. In the tube at San Quentin: The “secondary prisonization” of women visiting in- mates. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 32: 1, 77−107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F08912 41602238939. Comfort M 2007. Punishment beyond the legal of- fender. Annual Review of Law & Social Science 3, 271−296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev. lawsocsci.3.081806.112829. Comfort M 2008. Doing time together: Love and fam- ily in the shadow of the prison. University of Chi- cago Press, Chicago. Comfort M, Nurse AM, McKay T & Kramer K 2011. Taking children into account: Addressing the intergenerational effects of parental incarcera- tion. Criminology & Public Policy 10: 3, 839−850. Criminal Sanctions Agency 2008. The annual report of the criminal sanctions field. The Criminal Sanc- tions Agency, Helsinki. Derkzen D, Gobeil R & Gileno J 2009. Visitation and post-release outcome among federally-sentenced offenders. Correctional Service Canada Research Report No. R-205. Dirsuweit T 1999. Carceral spaces in South Africa: A case study of institutional power, sexuality and transgression in a women’s prison. Geoforum 30, 71−83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0016- 7185%2898%2900030-X. Downes D 2007. Visions of penal control in The Netherlands. In Tonry M (ed). Crime, punishment and politics in comparative perspective – Crime and justice: A review of research 36, 93−125. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Farrington K 1992. The modern prison as total institu- tion? Public perception versus objective reality. Crime & Delinquency 38: 6, 6−26. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177%2F0011128792038001002. Foucault M 1979. Discipline and punish. Vintage, New York. Foucault M [1967] 1998. Different spaces. In Foucault M (ed). Aesthetics, method and episte- mology. Penguin, London. Garland D 2001. Introduction: The meaning of mass imprisonment. Punishment & Society 3: 1, 5−7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F1462474012222 8203. Geller A, Garfinkel I & Western B 2011. Paternal in-Paternal in- carceration and support for children in fragile families. Demography 48, 23−47. http://dx.doi.or g/10.1007%2Fs13524-010-0009-9. Genocchio B 1995. Discourse, discontinuity, differ- ence: the question of ‘other’ spaces. In Watson S & Gibson K (eds). Postmodern cities and spaces, 35−46. Blackwell, Oxford. Gilmore RW 2002. Fatal couplings of power and dif- ference: Notes on racism and geography. The Pro- fessional Geographer 54, 15–24. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111%2F0033-0124.00310. Gilmore RW 2007. Golden Gulag: Prisons, surplus, crisis and opposition in globalizing California. University of California Press, Berkeley. Glasmeier AK & Farrigan T 2007. The economic im- pacts of the prison development boom on persist- ently poor rural places. International Regional Science Review 30: 3, 274−299. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177%2F0160017607301608. FENNIA 190: 2 (2012) 75The ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ of prisons: Carceral geography and … Goffman E 1961. Asylums: Essays on the social situa- tion of mental patients and other inmates. Anchor Books, Garden City, NY. Gottschalk M 2009. The long reach of the carceral state: The politics of crime, mass imprisonment, and penal reform in the United States and abroad. Law & Social Inquiry 34: 2, 439−472. http://dx. doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1747-4469.2009.01152.x. Hartman KJ 2000. Prison walls and firewalls: H.B. 2376 – Arizona denies inmate access to the inter- net. Arizona State Law Journal 32, 1423−1449. Holt N & Miller D 1972. Explorations in inmate-fam- ily relationships. California Department of Cor- rections Report No. 46. Hong-Chui W 2010. ‘Pains of imprisonment’: narra- tives of the women partners and children of the incarcerated. Child & Family Social Work 15, 196−205. Jeffery R & Woolpert S 1974. Work furlough as an alternative to incarceration: An assessment of its effects on recidivism and social cost. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 65: 3, 405−415. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307%2F1142610. Keinänen A, Tolvanen M, Helminen M & Kilpeläinen M 2010. Vankien poistumislupakäytännöt ja nii- den yhteneväisyys. Rikosseuraamuslaitoksen Jul- kaisuja 4/2010. Kruttschnitt C 2011. Is the devil in the details? Craft- ing policy to mitigate the collateral consequence of parental incarceration. Criminology & Public Policy 10: 3, 829−837. Lappi-Seppälä T 2000. The fall of the Finnish prison population. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention 1: 1, 27−40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F1404385005 0116246. Lappi-Seppälä T 2002. Penal policy and incarcera- tion rates. Corrections Today, 30−33. Lynch JP & Sabol WJ 2003. Assessing the effects of mass incarceration on informal social control in communities. Criminology & Public Policy 267, 267−294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1745- 9133.2004.tb00042.x. Mali J 2008. Comparison of the characteristics of homes for older people in Slovenia with Goff- man’s concept of the total institution. European Journal of Social Work 11: 4, 431−443. http://dx. doi.org/10.1080%2F13691450802220966. Mears DP, Cochran JC, Siennick SE & Bales WD 2011. Prison visitation and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 1−31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F07 418825.2011.583932. Ministry of Justice 1975. Statute on prison administra- tion. Ministry of Justice, Helsinki. Moran D 2012a. Prisoner reintegration and the stig- ma of prison time inscribed on the body. Punish- ment & Society. Moran D 2012b. Between outside and inside: Prison visiting rooms as liminal carceral spaces. Geo- Journal, forthcoming. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10708-011-9442-6. Moran D 2013. Leaving behind the ‘total institution’? Teeth, TransCarceral spaces and the (re)inscription of the formerly incarcerated body. Gender, Place & Culture. Moran D, Piacentini L & Pallot J 2012. Disciplined mobility and carceral geography: Prisoner trans- port in Russia. Transactions of the Institute of Brit- ish Geographers 37: 3, 446−460. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2011.00483.x. Moran D, Gill N & Conlon D (eds) 2013. Carceral spaces; Mobility and agency in imprisonment and migrant detention. Ashgate, Farnham. Morris P 1965. Prisoners and their families. George Allen & Unwin, London. Nelken D 2010. Comparative criminal justice. Sage, London. Noga A 1991. Battered wives: The home as a total institution. Violence and Victims 6: 2, 137−149. O’Donnell I & Jewkes Y 2011. Going home for Christ- mas: Prisoners, a taste of freedom and the press. The Howard Journal 50: 1, 75−91. Peck J 2003. Geography and public policy: Mapping the penal state. Progress in Human Geography 27, 222−232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191%2F0309 132503ph424pr. Peck J & Theodore N 2009. Carceral Chicago: Mak- ing the ex-offender employability crisis. Interna- tional Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32: 2, 251−281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj. 1468-2427.2008.00785.x. Philo C 2012. Security of geography/geography of se- curity. Transactions of the Institute of British Ge- ographers 37, 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj. 1475-5661.2011.00488.x. Pratt J & Eriksson A 2011. ‘Mr Larsson is walking out again’. The origins and development of Scandina- vian prison systems. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 44: 1, 7−23. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177%2F0004865810393105. Rose DR & Clear TR 1998. Incarceration, social capi- tal and crime: Implications for social disorganiza- tion theory. Criminology 36, 441−479. http://dx. d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1111 % 2 F j . 1 7 4 5 - 9 1 2 5 . 1 9 9 8 . tb01255.x. Rose DR & Clear TR 2003. Incarceration, re-entry and social capital: Social networks in the balance. In Travis J & Waul M (eds). Prisoners once re- moved: The impact of incarceration and reentry on children, families and communities. Urban In- stitute, Washington, DC. Rosenbloom T 2011. Traffic light compliance by ci- vilians, soldiers and military officers. Accident Analysis and Prevention 43: 6, 2010−2014. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.aap.2011.05.019. Schafer NE 1994. Exploring the link between visits and parole success: A survey of prison visitors. In- ternational Journal of Offender Therapy and Com- parative Criminology 38: 1, 17−32. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177%2F0306624X9403800103. 76 FENNIA 190: 2 (2012)Dominique Moran and Anssi Keinänen Shedd C 2011. Countering the carceral continuum: The legacy of mass incarceration. Criminology & Public Policy 10: 3, 865−871. Sibley D & van Hoven B 2009. The contamination of personal space: boundary construction in a prison environment. Area 41: 2, 198−206. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111%2Fj.1475-4762.2008.00855.x. Skorpen A, Anderssen N, Oeye C & Bjelland AK 2008. The smoking-room as psychiatric patients’ sanctuary: a place for resistance. Journal of Psy- chiatric and Mental Health Nursing 15: 9, 728−736. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1365- 2850.2008.01298.x. Snyder C, van Wormer K, Chadha J & Jaggers J 2009. Older adult inmates: The challenge for social work. Social Work 54: 2, 117−124. http://dx.doi. org/10.1093%2Fsw%2F54.2.117. van Hoven B & Sibley D 2008. ‘Just duck’: the role of vision in the production of prison space. Environ- ment and Planning D: Society and Space 26, 1001−1017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068%2Fd5107. von Hofer H 2003. Prison populations as political constructs: the case of Finland, Holland and Swe- den. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminol- ogy and Crime Prevention 4, 21−38. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080%2F14043850310009921. Wacquant L 2000. The new ‘peculiar institution’: on the prison as surrogate ghetto. Theoretical Crimi- nology 4, 377–389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177% 2F1362480600004003007. Wacquant L 2010a. Prisoner re-entry as myth and ceremony. Dialectical Anthropology 34, 605−620. Wacquant L 2010b. Class, race and hyperincarcera- tion in revanchist America. Daedelus 140: 3, 74−90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162%2FDAED_a_ 00024. Wacquant L 2010c. Crafting the neoliberal state: Workfare, prisonfare and social insecurity. Socio- logical Forum 25: 2, 197−220. Wacquant L 2011. The wedding of workfare and pris- onfare revisited. Social Justice 38: 1–2, 1−16. Wilderman C & Western B 2010. Incarceration in fragile families. The Future of Children 20: 2, 157−177. World Prison Brief 2012. 9.2.2012.