9. Effects of Stigmatization on Recidivists in Kano Central Prison

Muhammad Auwal Umar

“Deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an offender. The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label.” Howard S. Becker, 1963

The continuity of any society depends largely on how it is able to ensure conformity to its norms, rules, and laws. For the most part, individuals who conform receive approval and acceptance while those who violate these rules are usually punished. Such punishment is undertaken in such a way that it sanctions unacceptable behavior and discourages other people and even the same offender from rule violation.

Over time, society has evolved and created numerous forms of punishment so that the joint aim of retribution and deterrence can be achieved. Among the most notable modern methods of punishment is incarceration. This is when an individual is placed in some form of confinement with the aim of restricting his ability to repeat the same offense or other offenses. While under incarceration, the offender is given an opportunity to evolve into a more productive member of the society through skill acquisition and behavioral change.

Prison inmates can choose either to be conformist and changed individuals or to continue to commit crimes and other offenses. Thus, repeat offenders are a reality even as the prison system is becoming more sophisticated in its ability to provide individually adapted modes of rehabilitation. This chapter will cover the key variables, methodology, summary of data on inmates, summary of data on the public, and a concluding part indicating a summary of key conclusions and some recommendations.

Statement of the Problem

Once a society labels a person to a point of incarceration, then stigma cuts off the chances of the ex-convict getting back into the society properly. This is because he would be unable to get a job, find accommodation, marry or remarry, make new friends, or fit in with his old friends etc. These difficulties arise because people who are worried about ex-convicts, who they feel have repented little, if at all, for their deviant behavior. Such beliefs also intensify with an increase in the number of convictions or prison sojourns. The usual societal reaction is to label the ex-inmate as a criminal who is unlikely to change and, subsequently, follow through with stigmatization. As an expression of this stigmatization, the group negatively reacts to the ex-inmate and at any sign of crime in the group, the ex-convict is suspected, questioned over and over, harassed, and often manhandled by the group or by law enforcement agencies.

Stigmatization is known to adequately prevent any possibility of a new life for the ex-convict by pushing the ex-convict to engage in fresh criminality, either in retaliation or because there is no other way out. It is also common for this stigma to be passed down to the descendants of ex-convicts, thus making them pay for crimes they did not commit or be pushed to criminality. Stigmatization does not restrict itself to hampering only ex-convicts; it also deprives the society of the potential that the ex-convict has.

The best set of people to provide insight regarding the impact of stigma are criminals who have been imprisoned once, released, arrested again and are in prison for the second time or more. They will be able to reveal how they were treated by the society and their significant others when they were first released from prison. If they were accepted and given the chance to rehabilitate themselves, then it raises the question of why they returned to crime. They will also be able to discuss the efforts they made to start life afresh and the degree to which those efforts succeeded. Social values tend to determine and influence how people behave. Such values can be religious or simply social.

Theoretical Framework

Labeling Theory

The labeling theory is the theoretical framework of this study and is the actual basis upon which the discussions of the data took place. The data were collected with a view to testing the suitability of the labeling theory to the Nigerian environment. Although generally considered to be an offshoot of Interactionism, the labeling theory is considered by Hollin (1989) to be sympathetic to the conflict or critical school of thought. This claim is underlined by some postulates that hint at unequal privilege.

With reference to Becker’s (1963) postulates, the labeling theory can be summed up in the following position: Social Groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders. From this point of view, deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of the rules and sanctions to an “offender.” The deviant is one to whom the label has successfully been applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label.

Based on the works of scholars such as Enrico Ferri (1913), Howards S. Baecker (1963), and Edwin Lemert (1977) and discussions by Hollin (1989), major suppositions of the labeling theory revolve around the following:

• Having been labeled criminal, the deviant is gently castigated and isolated from the mainstream of society.
• Having been officially punished, the offender continues to undergo some unofficial and non-formal punishment when the society labels him as a criminal and ostracizes him.
• Law is applied for the benefit of those who hold social and economic power. An individual becomes a criminal when the people who hold power decide to confer the label “criminal” on him (i.e., Parents, teachers, community leaders, Police, Judges, etc.).
• Labeling has two major consequences; the first is the creation of stigma, which refers to the public attitudes of condemnation of the deviant and his exclusion from certain parts of the society.
• The labeled criminal is in this case associated with undesirable friends and is consequently a person to be avoided and treated with suspicion. When the individual comes to believe that the judgment passed by the society is correct, he modifies his self-image to match the level, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophesy and subsequent pathological behavior.
• As the label becomes a role for the labeled individual, the role is further reinforced so that the person’s life changes to suit the role. Once a society labels a person to a point of incarceration, then stigma cuts off the chances of the ex-convict getting back into the society properly.
• The ex-convict is suspected, questioned over and over, harassed, and often manhandled by the group or by law enforcement agencies.

Numerous studies have been undertaken either to prove the suppositions of the labeling theory or to debunk their substance. These studies have, however, been more prevalent in developed societies and less so in societies such as Kano and even Nigeria. Some of these empirical studies include the following. An empirical test of Labeling Theory was undertaken by Ray and Downs (1986) using longitudinal data and multiple regressions of the follow-ups on the baseline data and discussion of variables in order to test the direction of causality among drug use behavior in adolescents and the effects of informal and formal labels. The baseline and follow-up data were collected on a random sample of 100 adolescents (54 males and 46 females) and a clinical sample of 88 adolescents (49 males and 39 females). Separate regressions were performed on male and female respondents using both samples. The results were partially supported by the labeling theory proposition of secondary deviance among males, while among females, drug use behavior was that of causality prior to the application of the labels, which contradicts secondary deviance. More questions were therefore raised by the analysis and further research is needed to clarify reasons for this sex difference in causal processes over time. The implication for theory in the social sciences, including labeling theory, is that theories may be sex-specific; as such, tests on theories must be applied separately on each sex as well as on samples including both sexes.

Zhang (1994) presented his findings on a study he conducted in China on peer attitudinal response to labeling. Drawing from the labeling theory, Zhang raised two specific questions on peer response: (a) Do peers’ attitudinal responses to official delinquents vary with the severity of official reaction, and (b) Do peers’ attitudinal responses depend on their own labeling status? His samples include delinquents and non-delinquents in Tianjin, China. He reported that the severity of official reaction to delinquency was significantly associated with peers’ rejection of official delinquents, with this relationship being greater for non-delinquent peers’ rejection than for delinquent peers’ rejection. He also observed that peers’ attitudinal rejection varied significantly with their own labeling status though it is recorded only at certain levels of severity of official reaction. The major findings of this particular study were generally consistent with the labeling perspective even though the sample was drawn from China, whose values and laws function differently to those of Europe and America.

Another longitudinal study by Bernburg, Krohn, and Rivera (2006) shows the short-term impact of formal criminal labeling on involvement in deviant social networks and the increased likelihood of subsequent delinquency. According to labeling theory, formal criminal intervention should affect the individual’s immediate social networks. In many cases, the stigma of the criminal status may increase the probability that the individual becomes involved in deviant social groups thereby ultimately increasing involvement in subsequent deviance. Based on measures from three successive points in time when data was collected, the results indicate that the effects of passing through the juvenile justice process positively affects the delinquent’s subsequent involvement in serious delinquency by becoming involved with deviant social groups such as street gangs and other delinquent peers.

The studies and their findings show that elements of the labeling theory have been found to be realistic, while others have been debunked in different parts of the world. This has served to fuel the need for similar studies to be conducted in Nigeria with its rich culture and relatively high crime levels.

Data and Methods

Area of Study: Kano

Kano was chosen as the study areas because of its metropolitan area and its social complexity. Its commercial nature and vibrant economy also provide an environment where job opportunities abound both in volume and in diversity. The population of the study was people living in Kano and recidivists who are also living in Kano at the time of the study. The recidivist segment of the population was modified in response to field experiences, as recidivists who are out of prison became difficult to locate, thus necessitating the study focusing on recidivists who were in prison at the time of the study.

An ancient city located in Northern Nigeria, Kano is reputed to have been founded in the 6th century and has grown to one of the most notable cities in Nigeria, arguably second to Lagos in commerce and probably third after Ibadan in population size and density. With a population of 9.4 million people, Kano is predominantly populated by people of Hausa and Fulani extraction, though there is a sizeable number of Igbo, Yoruba, Nupe, Kanuri, Arab, Tiv, and Igbira language groups. The predominant religion is Islam (reputed to be practiced by more than 90% of the indigenous population) with Christianity the most common religion among settlers and a few animists. Kano is a major commercial and industrial center with agricultural products dominating its trade profile.

Sampling and Data Collection

Five hundred (500) respondents were the initial sample size for the study comprising of 200 recidivists and 300 members of the public. Unfortunately, the total number of recidivists in Kano Central Prison as at the time of the study was 126 and 14 of the sample from the public did not return their questionnaires, thus limiting the total number of respondents to 412.

The survey method was used for collecting the data for the study, though it was limited to the use of the questionnaire as the instrument of data collection. This narrow selection was informed by the desire to run statistical tests and have a basis for comparing data collected from the public and those collected from recidivists. Having a uniform instrument enhanced this comparative objective. The questionnaire was deposited with literate samples and retrieved at a later date, while those who were not literate were interviewed and the response written in the available space by the researcher. The data generated from the public was validated using focus group discussions.

The presentation and analysis of data included a descriptive format using frequency tables and bar charts, after which came cross tabulations and regression analysis. This mixture of analytical tools enabled a thorough and meaningful analysis and application of the data to justify an evaluation of the labeling theory with reference to Kano.

Presentation of Key Findings—Inmates

Description of Recidivists

A total of 126 inmates were studied with the following characteristics: 85.72% of the respondents (repeat offenders) were between the ages of 20 and 40. All of the subjects were males as there were no female repeat offenders at the time of data collection. Up to 62.7% of the respondents have never been married, while 23.81% were married and 11.11% were either divorced or separated with 2.38% widowed. Majority of the respondents (73.02%) did not have a wife. As regards religion, 89.68% declared being Muslims, which is consistent with the environment being predominantly Muslim and 79.36% were of Hausa/Fulani extraction, which is again consistent with the composition of Kano.

On Education, 42.06 % had only Qur’anic education as their highest level of education; 23.02% and 22.22% indicated incomplete and complete secondary education respectively. Other categories showed low numbers of responses. Incomplete primary education had 3.17%, complete primary education showed 5.56%, while only 2.38% had tertiary education.

Most of the subjects indicated that they had just one occupation (94.44%) while only seven had one other occupation in addition to their primary occupation. The subjects mentioned occupations ranging from military service to smuggling (even though smuggling is itself a crime and not an occupation). Only seven people (5.56%) stated that they were unemployed at the time of their conviction. The only jobs that showed large figures were trading, driving, and farming. Regular incomes were reported by 47.62%, while 51.59% said their income was irregular or periodic.

Regarding their income, 42.06% make less than N 2,500 per month while 19.84% make between N 2,500 to N 5,000 a month. This indicates that up to 61.90% make less than the national minimum wage of N 5,000 per month. It is thus evident that there is some relationship between poverty and recidivism. Conversely, 12.7% make between 50,000 and 70,000 naira per year, 10.32% make between 70,000 and 90,000 naira, while 7.94% make between 90,000 and 110,000 naira per annum. At the same time, the data shows that only 6.35% earn more than 110,000 naira per annum. If we consider the fact that an individual needs to make slightly more than 30,000 naira per month in order to live an average life, then we can see that most of the inmates, if not all, can be considered to be below the poverty line.

Record of Imprisonment

As indicated initially, all the subjects under study are repeat offenders who have been previously imprisoned; as such, each of the subjects under study can be considered a habitual offender. Of the subjects, 92 (73.02%) had been to prison twice in the past. This is a substantial number of the repeat offenders under study; we can, therefore, safely say that “twice” is the average number of prison “time.” those jailed three times represent 19.84% of the subjects, while 5.56% indicated four previous jail stints. Only two respondents (1.59%) had been in jail more than four times (Table 1).

Furthermore, 26.19% of the respondents mentioned that they had been previously tried and acquitted. Some of the subjects who had been previously acquitted had such experiences more than once (7.94% had it twice, 2.38% had it three times, while 0.79% had the experience four times). This means that when the number of arrests and trials are to be added up then the criminal record of most of the respondents will extend further.

Relationship with Family and Friends

Despite their apparent criminal habits, most of the subjects indicated that their family gave them one form of support or the other (e.g. sympathy, companionship, visitation in jail, providing for the need of the respondent, and securing the release of the respondent) while they were in prison and after. Only 16 respondents (12.7%) were rejected by their families as a result of their criminal and prison habits. It can be assumed from the data that there is a sustained bonding between family members even when one of them is a criminal.

In the same vein, many of the respondents’ friends offered their sympathy to the subjects (59%) while the other friends offered companionship, visited while in detention provided for the needs of the inmate, struggled for release, or a combination of these responses or the other. Of all the respondents, 86.51% indicated that their friends were sympathetic after their first release; only 13.49% claimed that their friends rejected them.

Reaction of Inmates to Rejection

Regarding the feelings generated by the rejection of friends and family members,

Table 2 shows that 20.63% said that they felt angry at being rejected by their friends and family members, while only 4.76% said that they felt resigned to their rejection. Any person who feels angry is quite likely to respond with an angry reaction. This points to the possibility of recidivism.

The subjects were asked if they believed that the society would react differently to its members based on differential social status. Contrary to what we expected, the majority of inmates (74.4%) believed that the society would have reacted towards them in the same way even if their social status was higher. Only 9.6% said that the society would have reacted differently if they had a higher social status.

Rehabilitative Benefits of Prison

Only a relatively small percentage of the inmates (9.48%) admitted to having learned any skills while in prison, as shown by Table 3. One person (0.79%) stated that he learned tailoring, three others (2.38%) learned carpentry, while seven people (5.55%) learned leather working.

Even among those who claimed to have learned skills, only a small number indicated using these skills to earn a living (4.76%). According to the respondents, their reasons for not using their skills ranged from lack of capital (3.13%), lack of machinery (1.56%), and lack of job opportunity (1.56%). This indicates that even if the inmates are able to acquire some life skills, there is always the issue of funding, resource acquisition, and lack of job opportunities.

Job Prospects and Reasons for Sustained Criminal Activities

Only 22.22% of the subjects looked for jobs after their initial incarceration. Most (41.26%) of the subjects did not mention why they did not look for a job. Some of the respondents went back to their old jobs or were not interested in taking a job. While others opted for menial jobs such as bus conductor, tea seller, messenger, laborer, tailor, carpentry, etc. These low-income jobs might not have sustained them.

Only two (1.59%) of the subjects informed their prospective employers that they had been to prison. One of them said that the information did not prevent him from getting the job while the other person stated that the information prevented him from getting the job.

The majority of the subjects (67.31%) stated that they made more money from their criminal activities than they would from an honest job, thus promoting the tendency to continue their criminal activities. Another reason offered for continued crime is the feeling of invincibility on the part of the criminal. Such feelings could make the individual believe that he would never be caught, thus burrowing himself deeper into crime.

Learning Crime in Prison

With reference to Table 4, 46.83% of the inmates in this study claimed to have learned how to commit other crimes while in prison (apart from the ones for which they were in prison), while 53.17% claimed not to have learned any new traits. As for the reasons why some were able to resist learning more criminal skills, 30.19% said that they were not interested in learning additional criminal behavior, 3.77% claimed that the fear of God and adherence to religious values gave them the ability to resist learning additional criminal skills. Eight (8) inmates (7.55%) stated that they kept to themselves and did not make any close associates, which prevented them from learning additional criminal behavior. On the other hand, majority of the subjects (73.02%) admitted that more behavior that is criminal is learned in prison than in the greater society.

Life after Previous Prison Term

The inmates were asked how they fared when they completed their prison term or prison stay (in the case of awaiting trial) and the nature of the problems they faced. Slightly over 18% claimed that they had no problems after they completed their last incarceration. More significantly, 64.6% had financially related problems such as lack of jobs and 17.7% indicated lack of money. Fifteen of the subjects stated that rejection from friends and relatives was the problem that they faced when they finished their last term. One person each (equivalent to 0.88% each) mentioned such problems as being monitored by relatives, slow start on a new life, constantly being suspected by other people, and one was divorced by his wife. Only 6.42% claimed that they were able to solve these problems, while 83.49% could not solve them.

On life after prison, four persons either did not know what to do or stated that they will not do anything. Only one person (0.79%) categorically stated that he will no longer commit crimes. The bulk of the respondents 48.41% will simply return to their old jobs. Returning to school was of interest to 9.52%, while 2.38% said that they will go back to school and do some business at the same time. Three (2.38%) intend to go back to farming, while 13.49% will start a business. At the same time, 15.08% claimed that when they finish their sentence, they are going to get a job and start again. It is interesting to note that two of the subjects (1.59%) mentioned that their plan is to get married when they get out of prison.

As a solution the inmates suggested that people can be prevented from committing crimes if jobs pay higher wages, opportunities are more evenly spread across the society (for rich and poor as well as for ex-inmates), our leaders show good examples, and schools are made to be more productive. Even though none of the inmates claimed any of these as a reason for their criminality, they were still able to observe that these factors could help reduce the rate of crime in the society.

Presentation of Key Findings: Description of Public Respondents

This section deals with the summary of the presentation of the data collected from the general public using a questionnaire schedule. A total of 300 questionnaires were issued; 286 were returned while 14 were not returned. A large proportion (42.31%) of the respondents are within the ages of 20 and 29; 40.91% persons were aged between 30 and 39 with 12.94% between 40 and 49 years old. At the same time, 2.8% or eight persons were between 50 and 59 years of age while only three people (1.05%) were 60 years or older. The bulk of the respondents were male (85.66%) while only 41 females (14.34%) were part of the sample.

Three (1.05%) of the subjects were widowed, 2 each or 0.70% each were either divorced or separated from their spouses, 173 persons (60.49%) were married while 37.06% or 106 people were single. The bulk of the subjects (89.86%) were of Hausa extraction, which is consistent with the nature of the population in the area of study with Fulani accounting for 5.94% and Yoruba at 1.4%. All the other identities accounted for less than one percent each; they include Igbo, Kanuri, Jarawa, Urhobo, Gwari, Nupe, and Wamba. With respect to religious affiliation, the majority are of the Islamic faith (97.2%) while the remaining eight persons (2.8%) were Christians.

In terms of education, only 0.7 percent of the sample had no education and 15.38% or 44 people had only Qur’anic education. The largest distributions were for Complete Secondary School and Tertiary with 28.32% and 33.57% respectively. Those beginning Secondary school accounted for 8.74%, but did not complete their education; 7.34% had completed Primary School but did not proceed beyond that, while 5.94% went through Primary Schools but did not complete their study.

With reference to occupations, the pattern of jobs engaged in by our subjects ranged from very high paying jobs such as business management to low paying jobs such as bus conductor. Nonetheless, 243 of the subjects (84.97%) had jobs that offer them regular income as against 5.94% with periodic income. 9.09% (26 persons) stated that they did not have any income. In terms of the income itself, only 7 persons (2.45%) had incomes in the sub 30,000 naira category per annum. Of the subjects, 18 (6.29%) indicated that they had income ranging from 30,000 to 50,000 naira per annum; 20.63% declared earnings between 50,000 and 70,000 per annum. 21.68% earned between 70,000 and 90,000 naira per annum, 20.28% declared between 90,000 and 110,000 Naira per annum as their average income.

Respondents’ Perception of the Character of Ex-inmates

Over sixty percent (66.32%) indicated that ex-inmates can indeed be trusted as against just 28.77% who declared distrust (Table 5). Some of the reasons for their answers, those who offered trust suggested that ex-inmates had paid their debt to society by going to prison, would probably have learned a lesson from their prison experiences, and should be given a chance to start again. Others suggested that many of the ex-inmates could have been innocent in the first place and they could have been sentenced by a corrupt judicial system, as such they would have gone to prison for no justifiable reason. Therefore, their character could still be relatively upright. 

Conversely, those who declared that ex-inmates should not be trusted said they felt that such people already had a criminal record and could have refined their criminal behavior while in prison, as such they should be dealt with cautiously and with extreme care. The summary is that “once a criminal, then maybe always a criminal.”

Most of the subjects (60%) are of the view that ex-inmates could stop committing crimes as opposed to 30.18% who felt that such ex-inmates could not stop their criminal activities (Table 6 above).

The respondents felt that prison experience is likely to change a person for the better. The prison is not an environment conducive to comfort or convenience for the average individual, as such ex-inmates are likely discouraged from returning. Another reason tendered is that many criminals believe that they cannot be caught, but once they go to prison and experience the hardship of incarceration, they may re-evaluate their choices. There are also individuals who take charge of their wards after prison and steer them clear of further crime. Others are of the view that the rehabilitative programs of the prison may teach the ex-inmates what to do in the greater society, thus avoiding a relapse into crime.

Table 7 shows that one hundred and eighty respondents (63.16%) are of the view that a prison term rehabilitates an ex-inmate as opposed to 25.61% who felt that it does not. We can conclude that the general public is very optimistic about the reforming qualities of the prison.

Table 8. Respondents’ View Of Social Reaction to Ex-inmates (General Public)

Among the general public, 76.22% agree that society does actually reject ex-inmates while 19.23% disagreed (Table 8). This contrasts with the claim by 60% of the respondents that ex-inmates can actually stop committing crimes and another view by 63% that a prison term rehabilitates the ex-inmate. If society is of the view that ex-inmates can change, then why are they being rejected?

However, even though a large percentage of the respondents agree that ex-convicts are rejected, 87.02% indicate their willingness to employ an ex-convict if they were opportune to do so, as opposed to only 24 people (08.42%) who opined that they would not employ an ex-convict. Many of the respondents (163 of them, or 57.19%) were of the view that rejection is not in any real sense an extension of the punishment served on criminals, but a reaction of insecurity around ex-inmates as shown in Table 9.

Table 9. Rejection as an Extension of Punishment for Offenses (Gen. Public)

Others, constituting 24.21%, felt that rejection could be considered an extension of the punishment served on criminals as rejection will serve to deter other individuals who might consider becoming criminals. Most of the respondents (82.11%) were of the view that if ex-inmates are rejected, then they will be pushed into further criminal behavior. Only 11.93% of our respondents disagreed with the supposition.

The majority of respondents (78.95%) were of the view that society reacts differently towards ex-inmates depending on their social status. This is because the social structure is lopsided and an individual receives different treatment depending on his social status. This is true in the general manner in which society treats people and specifically in the case of ex-inmates. In the first case, our respondents believe that when a person is rich, he is less likely to go to prison let alone become an ex-inmate. This is because most often, the judicial process is corrupt and people can buy their way out at any levels of the process. Should such a rich person make it to jail, the experience is quickly forgotten by the members of the society, who are basically eager to partake of the wealth of this ex-inmate.

Only 16.49% of the respondents were of the view that the Judicial System is efficient, while the majority (66.67%) felt that the judicial system is inefficient in the manner it executes its responsibilities. There was also reference to the high number of inmates who were awaiting trial, in some cases for many years—some even for more years than the sentences they would have served.

Some of the subjects mentioned the need for a fresh approach to possible punishment. In fact, some even suggested that if the Shari’ah legal system is instituted, then it is likely to introduce alternatives to prison such as whipping, amputations, and death sentences. The hope is that this will decongest prisons. According to the respondents, the prison reform promised by the Government may bring with it the needed change in the prison system and will hopefully rehabilitate inmates, allowing ex-inmates a chance to become reformed and to assume a more productive role in the society. With adequate funding and better structured prisons, the system will serve a better purpose than the current hive of breeding hardened criminals.

Concerning what can be done to prevent people from going back to crime after a presumed reforming prison experience, the respondents pointed out that there is the need for a more equitable distribution of wealth so that fewer people will be poor. There is also the need for additional forms and means of employment so that people can be productive. The society also needs to monitor the activities of its members to prevent them from drifting too far from the norms of the society. Some of the subjects also suggested a more efficient police and judicial system, which will serve to discourage people from becoming criminals.

Discriminatory Effects of Stigmatization

It was postulated that ex-inmates face serious difficulties in trying to get back into the society and such difficulties create some disillusionment and may precipitate further criminality. The findings reveal that it was not every ex-inmate that actually attempted to find work. In fact, only 22.22% looked for jobs after their incarceration. Our hypothesis suggests that employers do not readily employ ex-inmates, as such most people who actually need a job may end up lying about their prison record because their chances of getting a job could be jeopardized if a prospective employer discovered their prison record.

The data suggest that most of the recidivists did not intend to assume regular jobs, even when they left prison. Among the second set of respondents (Public), 87.02% indicated their willingness to employ an ex-convict if they were opportune to do so, as opposed to only 24 people (08.42%) who would be unwilling. The public appears to have some form of sympathy towards ex-inmates. It is therefore logical to assume that even though the general public might wish to offer employment to ex-inmates, their gestures are likely to fail in the absence of skills on the part of the potential applicants.

At this point, it can be concluded that there is no evidence to show that ex-inmates were denied jobs because they went to prison. In fact, the data seem to indicate that the general population is willing to offer such jobs but the ex-inmates prefer to resume their criminal activities because of the financial benefits.

Rejection leads to further Criminality

Denial of ex-inmates attempting to reintegrate into society may push the ex-inmate into mainstream crime, especially if the denial comes from the family. A large number of the respondents indicated that their families and friends were sympathetic towards them during their incarceration and after they were released from prison.

The data show a very weak link between the manner of reaction of the family of ex-inmates and the number of times the recidivist had been to prison. Only 11.11% of the recidivists actually stated that they felt rejected by their families. It is still pertinent to note that as many as 20.63% decided that they were rejected and their reaction to that was anger. Another 4.76% stated that they felt resigned to their fate and they accepted their rejection as an unpleasant fact.

It is logical that such deep-seated anger could provoke antisocial behavior in the ex-inmate in the form of further criminal activities. It can be deduced that those who felt rejected by their families and friends are quite likely to be angry and that anger could result in further criminality. It should be noted that although the actual number of those who felt rejected is small, when compared to their reaction (anger) one can see that almost all of them were angry at their rejection and they could have reacted by resorting to continued crime. This means that despite the low proportion of those who felt rejected, it is still a significant indicator of the possibility of an angry reaction. Despite the strong feeling of anger, the data show a weak relationship between the reaction of the recidivists’ family and the number of prison terms.

Labeling and Stigmatization are Deliberate

The assumption is that stigmatization is not accidental but a deliberate strategy to punish the offender for whatever he had done against the society. Therefore, when ex-inmates are being discriminated against for jobs, residence, marriages, political offices, etc., they are merely continuing the punishment they started from prison. The aim may be to deter others from committing offenses or to prevent a repeat occurrence. This can be perpetuated consciously or unconsciously. The argument for accepting or rejecting this hypothesis revolves around a discussion of the responses of the general public on their perception of the character of ex-inmates (recidivists and others).

A large proportion (66.32%) indicated that ex-inmates could be trusted. Reasons offered suggested that these ex-inmates would probably have learned a lesson from their prison experiences and should be given a chance to start again. Their belief is that it is normal for people to make mistakes, but they should be forgiven if they were able to pay their debt to society by going to prison. Furthermore, many of the ex-inmates could have been innocent in the first place and could have been sentenced by a corrupt judicial system and, as such, would have gone to prison for no justifiable reason. Therefore, their character could still be relatively upright. In opposition to this, those who declared that ex-inmates should not be trusted said so because they felt that such people already had a criminal record and could have refined their criminal behavior while in prison as such they should be dealt with cautiously and with extreme care. Their assumption is that “once a criminal then may always be a criminal.”

A significant proportion (60%) of the public believes that ex-prison inmates can actually stop their criminal behavior and adopt acceptable and conformist behavior. This data is consistent with the recidivists view on rehabilitation, in which 63.16% are of the view that a prison term rehabilitates an ex-inmate. We can conclude that the general public is very optimistic about the reforming qualities of the prison as well as the forgiving nature of the society. Even though majority (76.22%) of this same set of respondents stated that the society actually and deliberately rejects ex-inmates. There appears to be an element of contradiction that suggests public reaction towards ex-inmates is not necessarily a function of the inability of the ex-prisoner to reform, to stop crime, or to be forgiven by the society, but of some other factors.

Similarly, 56.29% of the respondents (public) were of the opinion that the rejection of ex-inmates by members of the society is not a deliberate social response. Only 29.02% felt that the social rejection of ex-inmates was deliberate and calculated. In that, the general public does not feel enough confidence to trust an ex-inmate because nobody will sympathize with you if such an ex-inmate committed another crime against you. They also believe that old habits are hard to change. Some argued that if an ex-inmate was your employee, you may not feel disposed to working with him again because the element of trust has been betrayed. The respondents also argued that there are other “clean” individuals who have not been to prison who are willing to work for the same pay or even less with relative safety from danger of criminality. A consideration of all the facts presented above and in other sections of this chapter leads to conclude that stigmatization is a deliberate post prison-term punishment for crimes and other offenses.

Conclusion

This chapter tried to assess the extent to which aspects of the labeling theory can be applicable to the Kano environment, which is considered to be distinctly different from the environment in which such a theory was generated. The data generated in the study actually highlighted some of the aspects while refuting others. Some of the suppositions of the labeling theory were found to be applicable in Kano while others were not. At this point, it will be most useful to revisit these two categories.

The data point to the fact that society certainly has some reservations about allowing ex-inmates to reintegrate into the society. This is evident from the fact that even though members of the general public were willing to forgive ex-inmates, the ex-inmates did not usually find it easy to acquire employment. This was the opinion of most of the respondents from among the general public and even the recidivists. However, the recidivists themselves stated that they did not usually look for jobs; as such, this position is actually tenuous. After all, only a small proportion of the respondents actually indicated looking for a job and failing to find one.

However, most of the subjects indicated that they made friends in prison and have been able to learn criminal behavior while in prison. At the same time, some of them stated that their friends did not accept them back and they had to continue relating with the friends they made in prison. This is consistent with the labeling theory, which states that ex-inmates tend to relate with individuals who are considered to be undesirable because they, too, tend to be criminal in nature.

Although family members and friends were indicated as having accepted the recidivists back, the data from the general public shows that the average individual is not very comfortable with an ex-inmate and is not likely to offer them a job, even if he is in a position to do so. This shows that the society as a whole has some reservations about relating with ex-inmates, even if such inmates might have the illusion that they have been accepted back. This is consistent with one of the suppositions of the labeling theory, which stated the same. Both recidivists and the general public agree that the society tends to extend the punishment beyond prison. Ex-inmates tend to suffer all forms of rejection, though both categories of samples maintain that the rejection and stigmatization is not a deliberate or calculated social effort. Rather, it is circumstantial. Whether this is an attempt to cover up a sense of guilt among the general public is not very clear. Nevertheless, even if the general public is covering up, the recidivists themselves are of the view that the resultant stigmatization is not deliberate. This means that the labeling theory is not completely accurate with regards to the deliberate nature of stigmatization. Many other conclusions can be drawn with regard to the differences between the suppositions of the labeling theorists and the reality established by this study. Among them are the following:

Labeling theory holds that the labeled criminal is likely to adjust his behavior to fit the label and thus continue to be criminal in nature. The data point to the fact that the recidivists under study are of the view that they continued along the path of criminality because of economic and monetary reasons. Therefore, it is not a refusal to change because of a label but a mercenary computation of margins and profits. Thus, the data from Kano point in the opposite direction to the claims of the labeling theory. It is not an issue of self-image but the economic angle that makes ex-inmates resort to further crime. Though they could not gain a paying job, the data also show that not many of them actually looked for such a job. Most of them simply choose to continue their criminal career.

Few of the inmates pointed to anger as a motivation for continued crime. In fact, very few of them believed that they were rejected by their significant others. Most of them stated that they were supported in one way or the other by their relatives and friends and that they felt accepted when they returned from prison. As such, there was not much anger against the society or the family or friends.

The conclusion that can be made at this point is that the culture, manner, nature and patterns of relationships determine how the society reacts to wards ex-inmates. Thus it can be stated that ex-inmates in Kano are of the view that they are usually supported by relatives/friends and accepted back into the society thus removing any sense of anger or revenge. As such anger can be ruled out as a motivator for further criminality among recidivists in Kano. As a concluding remark, Labeling can be said to be a phenomenon that holds in the Kano environment only in certain aspects; other aspects of it are rejected due to variations in cultural expectations and family bonding.

Recommendations

A number of recommendations can be made regarding some of the key issues that have been raised in the course of this research. They include the following:

Government Policies

• Government needs to improve the judicial system in order to speed up the trial process in an effort to reduce the number of persons awaiting trial in Nigerian prisons.
• Government should improve the rehabilitative aspects of imprisonment so that inmates can learn life skills and be able to reintegrate in the society at the end of their prison term.
•  Alternatives to prison custody should be explored and developed in order to reduce the number of persons awaiting trial in prison, with a view to minimizing the impact of imprisonment.
• Government should support the resettlement of prisoners after serving their term in prison in order to enhance their life chances through loans, hire purchase, leasing, or outright allocation of tools and other equipment needed for professional pursuits.
• Halfway houses should be set up to enable inmates to experiment with freedom and the responsibilities associated with it even before they complete their prison term so as to prepare them for the challenges of life after prison
• Government needs to create an enabling environment for job creation in the society to provide chances for ex-inmates who choose to reform and become conformists.
• Law enforcement should focus on preventing as well as combating crimes with particular focus on monitoring and utilization of information and intelligence so that crime can be discouraged before it happens.

 Community participation

• Community leaders and groups need to participate in the less formal punishment methods such as community service for lesser offenses to reduce prison congestion and the impact of imprisonment. This calls for a broad-based approach to the application of punishment methods such that community-based groups and other civil society groups will offer support to government efforts in alternative modes of punishment to imprisonment.
• Families and parents should also be more responsive to their responsibilities in child upbringing and socialization so that youths can be less susceptible to criminal behavior and other corrupting influences.
• Society should consider alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as village forum, community leaders and other informal resolution forums instead of the court process. This will reduce the number of civil cases and other minor offenses that lead to prison custody and the attendant imprisonment experiences.

References

Ahonwa, O. L. (1996). Behind the wall. Civil Liberties Organization, Lagos, Nigeria.

Ahonwa, O. L. (2000). Privatization and prison. Prison Watch.

Aturu, B. (2000). Truly archaic and embarrassing.  Watch.

Auerhahn, K. (1999). Selective incapacitation and the problem of prediction. Criminology Journal, 37(4), pp. 703-734.

Baker, J. E. (1985). Prisoner participation in prison power. Scarecrow.

Bedau, H. A. (1987). Death is different.  Northeastern.

Bennett, G. (1987). Crimewarps: The future of crime in America. Doubleday.

Bernburg, J. G., Krohn, M. D., & Rivera, C. J. (2006). Official labeling, criminal embeddedness, and subsequent delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43, pp. 67-88.

Black, C. L. Jr. (1982). Capital punishment: The inevitability of caprice and mistake. LOCATION: Norton.

Browning, F. & Gerassi, J. (1980). The American way of crime. Putnam.

Cardozo, B. (1960). Nature of the judicial process. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Cronin, T. E. et al. (1981). U. S. v. crime in the streets. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Cunliffe, F. & Piazza, P. B. (1980). Criminalistics and scientific investigation. Prentice Hall.

Dobson, T. & Shepherd-Chow, J. (1981). Safe and alive. Tarcher.

Eldefonso, E. (1983). Law enforcement and the youthful offender (4th ed.).  Wiley.

Eriksson, T. (1976). The reformers: An historical survey of pioneer experiments in the treatment of criminals. Elsevier.

Feeley, M. & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30, pp. 449-474.

Ganiat, L. I. (2000). The society and its ex-convicts. Prison Watch.

Geis, G. & Meier, R. F. (1977). White collar crime: Offenses in business, politics, and professions. Free Press.

Gottfredson, D. M. (1999). Effects of judges’ sentencing decisions on criminal careers. EDITORS NEEDED (Eds.), National Institute of Justice: Research in brief. Washington D. C.: US Department of Justice.

Haskins, J. (1977). Street gangs: Yesterday and today. Hastings.

Hindelang, M. J. et al (1981). Measuring delinquency. Sage.

Horton, H. P. (1911). Crime, its causes and remedies. The translated works of Lombroso (pp. PAGES). Little Brown.

Jolowicz, H. F. (1978). Roman foundations of modern law. Greenwood.

Kadish, S. H. (Ed.), (1983). Encyclopedia of crime and justice (4 vol.). Simon & Schuster.

Kelly, R. J. et al. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of organized crime in the United States. Greenwood.

Maguire, K. & Pastore, A. L. (1997). Quality of prisoner self-reports: Arrest and conviction response errors. Santa Monica, CA: Raid.

Maltz, M. D. (1984). Recidivism. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Marvell, T. & Moody, C. (1996). Determinate sentencing and abolishing parole: The long term impacts on prisoners and crime. Criminology, 1, pp. 107-128.

May, C. P. (1974). Probation. Hawthorn.

McKelvey, B. (1977). American prisons: A history of good intentions (2nd ed.). P. Smith.

Mitford, J. (1974). Kind and usual punishment: The prison business. Random.

Noonan, J. T. Jr. (1988). Bribes. LOCATION: MacMillan.

Prescott, P. S. (1981). The child savers: Juvenile justice observed.  Touchstone.

Ray, M. C. & Downs, W. R. (1986). An empirical test of labeling theory using longitudinal data. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23, pp. 169-194.

Reitz, K. & Reitz, C. (1993). The American Bar Association’s new sentencing standards. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 6, pp. 169-173.

Rothenberg, R. E. (Ed.). (1981). The plain-language law dictionary. Viking Penguin.

Sellin, T. (1980). The penalty of death. Sage.

Smith, L. & Akers, R. (1993). A comparison of recidivism of Florida’s community control and prison: A five year survival analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, pp. 267-292.

Spohn, C. & Holleran, D. (2002). The effect of imprisonment on recidivism rates of felony offenders: A focus on drug offenders. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Criminology, 40(2), pp. 329-357.

Ugochukwu, B. (DATE). The holding charge and human rights. Prison Watch.

Van den Haag, E. (1975). Punishing criminals. Basic.

Vaz, E. W. & Lodhi, A. Q. (1979). Crime and delinquency in Canada. Prentice.

Wicker, T. (1994). A time to die. Nebraska.

Wilson, J. Q. (1985). Thinking about crime. Random.

Zhang, L. (1994). Peers’ rejection as a possible consequence of official reaction to delinquency in Chinese society. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21(4), pp. 387-402.

Zimring, F. E. & Hawkins, G. (1989). Capital punishment and the American agenda. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press