ABSTRACT
Thirteen women were identified to me by their probation officers as ‘troublesome’ women, who might, nevertheless, be prepared to discuss with me their experiences of the criminal justice system. Of these, two (Jean and Linda) refused to be interviewed. Jean, according to her probation officer, was ‘going through a crisis’ and was preoccupied, while Linda was apparently not interested in discussing her experiences. Two other women (Susan and Kathy) both agreed to be interviewed but each failed to keep two appointments made with me. Mention has already been made of the trap in which these women are caught, whereby they are rendered incapable of either refusing or fulfilling the contract which is offered to them in the name of help. The mechanisms of resistance which are available to them are those which inevitably invoke from their would-be helpers moral judgements about ‘unreliability’, ‘manipulativeness’, and ‘deceitfulness’. For those would-be helpers to consider any other, less positivistic explanation for the women’s behaviour would threaten the ‘taken-for-grantedness’ of existing social relations. Failure to keep appointments and general elusiveness characterized many of the women who were discussed with me by their probation officers. Few of them could be accused of deliberately failing to keep in touch (which would constitute a breach of the conditions of a probation order) but time and time again, women would present reasons/excuses for being unable to keep office appointments (children’s illnesses, lack of bus fares, repair men/ Social Security visitors expected, etc.) yet would also find themselves unexpectedly called out of their homes when the officer had arranged to call on them. Even probation officers who
laid on transport to bring women to women’s groups or clubs run at their offices expressed frustration at the numerous abortive journeys made by volunteers or ancillary workers to women who were ‘out’ or whose children were suddenly and conveniently ‘poorly’. These women, like Victoire Rivière (Foucault 1975), were the everlasting cancellers of contracts. Their potency lay in their ability to agree to, yet to fail to honour, even the simplest contracts about times and places of physical meetings. By presenting constantly moving targets, such women unwittingly succeeded in outwitting officials and evading assessment, classification, and control. For some women, their children-and their social workers, the consequences of such elusiveness can be tragic, especially when there is real concern for the welfare of children (cf. the Jasmine Beckford case, London Borough of Brent 1985). But while women remain distrustful of those in authority who are directed to ‘help’ them and, furthermore, feel powerless to influence the nature of that help, they will continue to put themselves literally ‘beyond help’ and ‘out of reach’ by simply avoiding contact
Nine women, therefore, agreed to be interviewed and two more, as previously mentioned, were interviewed under different circumstances (Fiona and Jackie). In the interviews they talked about their law-breaking, their personal circumstances, their attitudes to courts, solicitors, psychiatrists, probation officers, social workers-and to themselves. Common themes emerged from their stories-loneliness, fear, low self-esteem, bewilderment, suppressed anger, and, above all, a sense of not being listened to, heard, or understood. But there were differences and contradictions, too. Some felt they had been sentenced harshly, but were still appreciative of the help they had received from individual professionals. Others felt they had been dealt with leniently, despite denying criminal intention or mens rea, in its strict judicial sense.
