Prisoner-Family Relationships in Cases of Extreme Distance in the U.S.

• In Event: Race, Culture, and the Colonial Dimensions of Familial Punishment

Abstract

While it is easy to assume that exile, banishment, and transport are relics of the past, the practice of separating prisoners from their families is still utilized today, in contravention of international law. Rule 58 and 59 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (United Nations 2015) mandate family interaction and close prisoner allocation. However, in countries throughout Europe and the Americas in particular, prisoners can be sent hundreds or thousands of miles from their families to serve long-term prison sentences.

In the United States, the Supreme Court paved the way for unfettered prisoner transport within the country in its 6-3 decision in Olim v. Wakinekona (1983). This precedent has not been seriously challenged since. Today, multiple jurisdictions contract with private prison facilities in other states to address population overflow issues (e.g., Vermont, South Carolina, the US Virgin Islands). Hawai’i in particular contracted a private prison company in 2007 to build a facility in the Arizona desert for thousands of its male prisoners with long-term sentences. Hawai’i sought out this contract due to lack of adequate prison accommodation within the islands and with the hope of cutting costs. Since then, thousands of men have been sent across the Pacific Ocean, 3,000 miles away from home with limited opportunities for family contact.

This research raises questions of competing rights (i.e. the right to family contact and the right to safe, clean prison facilities) and proposes a theory for orienting the role of distance, coloniality, and carcerality in prisoner-family relationships. Through the Hawaiian case study, the impact of family solidarity, family means, prison procedures, and cultural connection on relational closeness/distance is considered.

Author

• Molly Biddle, University of Cambridge