Article

Australian & New Zealand

Journal of Criminology
Secondary victims and the 46(1) 119–137
! The Author(s) 2013
trauma of wrongful conviction: Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Families and children’s DOI: 10.1177/0004865812470384
anj.sagepub.com
perspectives on imprisonment,
release and adjustment
Sion Jenkins
University of Portsmouth, UK

Abstract
This paper examines the experiences of secondary victims of wrongful conviction, including
the children of appellants and those families suffering bereavement following homicide. Most
wives, mothers and children affected by miscarriages of justice continued to suffer from
symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress disorder despite the appellant’s quashed
conviction and release from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). In cases where the
victim of crime (where alive) and defendant come from the same family the trauma experi-
enced by the appellant and family can be catastrophic, leading to broken relationships and
prolonged trauma. This paper will examine the consequences of families’ victimisation and
consider those factors that contribute further to their pain. The article will conclude that
most secondary victims continue to suffer from their traumatic experiences and that the
children of appellants suffer particularly from the injustice of learning to cope with the
wrongful conviction and imprisonment of a parent.

Keywords
secondary victims, stigma, victimisation, wrongful conviction

Introduction
In November 1999 Sally Clarke was wrongly convicted of the murder of two of her sons
at Chester Crown Court in the United Kingdom. The prosecution case was that Clarke
had smothered her children. The convictions were upheld at appeal in October 2000 but
were quashed by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in January 2003. Following
her successful appeal, Clarke returned to the family home and was supported by her
husband and extended family (Batt, 2005). Despite this, Clarke was never able to fully
recover from her experiences and developed psychiatric problems, including alcohol
dependency. Clarke died of acute alcohol intoxication in 2007 (Shaikh, 2007) leaving

Corresponding author:
Sion Jenkins, University of Portsmouth, Ravelin House, Museum Road, Portsmouth, PO5 3DZ, UK.
Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on September 1, 2016

120 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 46(1)

a husband and young son to cope with her death. This case is illustrative of other cases
involving victims of wrongful conviction and their families. The experience of being
convicted and imprisoned for an offence they did not commit can lead to many victims
suffering from symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress syndrome (Grounds,
2004; Simon, 1993). The psychological and emotional trauma can similarly affect the
family of appellants including their children. Families continuing to reside in the locality
where the offence took place can feel stigmatised by their local community. Some express
concern that neighbours and work colleagues distance themselves from them. The chil-
dren of many families routinely have to leave their local school because of anxiety and
bullying. Marital relationships suffer, with many released appellants indicating they are
either divorced or estranged from their spouse within two years of their release despite
the quashing of the conviction. An additional challenge for some secondary victims
concerns those cases where the ‘victim’ comes from the same family unit as the appellant.
In cases where the victim is the spouse, child or other close family member, the defendant
and other family members have to negotiate a difficult pathway through the criminal
justice system. The process of grieving can mean that coping with the investigation and
their immediate circumstances become even more problematic for the defendant and
their family.
This paper will explore the traumatic experiences of secondary victims of wrongful
conviction in England and Wales. The particular focus of the paper is on the negative
effects experienced by the wives and children of appellants during imprisonment and
post-release. Most children indicated that they continued to suffer from depression and
anxiety as a direct consequence of their experiences, particularly when the wrongfully
convicted person was a parent. During imprisonment and post-release the secondary
victims experienced additional challenges including that the conviction and release of the
appellant sometimes led to split allegiances within the primary and extended family. The
article builds on an earlier research project which took three years to complete leading to
the award of PhD in 2011. The original thesis examined the dynamics of pressure groups
campaigning against miscarriages of justice in England and Wales and involved partici-
pant observation and interviews with activists, judicial practitioners and with appellants
and their families. The research methods used also included the analysis of documentary
evidence. The project involved data collection with 132 participants including 27 primary
victims of wrongful conviction. The participants were observed over three years and
during the course of the study 55 of these participants were interviewed regularly over a
two-year period. Most secondary victims interviewed or observed were women as they
constituted the leadership of most campaign groups. Later interviews were conducted
with victims of crime (n ¼ 17) and with 13 children of a released parent and victim of
wrongful conviction. The children (eight boys and five girls) were aged between 12 and
17 years old and were interviewed with a parent in attendance.
The participants chose to refer to themselves as ‘victims’ of wrongful conviction
regardless of whether they were a primary or secondary victim. Most remained active
in campaigning against miscarriages of justice, despite the conviction having been
quashed. They did not view their activities or personal identification as that of ‘passive’
victim, but as victims actively protesting against injustice. Walklate (1993) suggests that
although the argument is sometimes framed in oppositional terms it is possible to
see ‘victim’ and ‘survivor’ as denoting different aspects of the existential journey of

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on September 1, 2016

Jenkins 121

the individual. In situations where individuals have experienced a traumatic event

they might be ‘active or passive victims’ or ‘active or passive survivors’ depending on
their own path to recovery (Walklate, 2004: 54). For the purposes of this paper partici-
pants will be referred to as ‘victims’ of wrongful conviction. Throughout the paper the
‘wrongful conviction’ of participants denotes that the conviction has been quashed by
the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). All primary victims of wrongful conviction
stated they were factually innocent of the crimes for which they had been imprisoned.
The paper, however, makes no comment on the factual innocence of any participant.
Throughout the trial process the defendant is accorded the ‘presumption of innocence’
whereby they are assumed ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and the ‘standard of proof’
required to convict is guilt ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ (Ashworth and Redmayne, 2005).
During appeal proceedings the appellant and defence do not have to ‘prove innocence’
as this is not the purpose of the appeal and as such the term is rarely used in court
(Nobles and Schiff, 2002). The appeal court considers itself the ‘court of review’
and its role is only to determine whether a conviction is ‘safe’ or ‘unsafe’
(Hungerford-Welch, 2009).
An important aspect of the research which generated this article is that it was con-
ducted by a researcher engaged in research with a community of which they are a
member. I was wrongly convicted of murder and served six years imprisonment of a
life sentence before my conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal (Criminal
Division) in 2004. In February 2006 (following two retrials) I was formally acquitted,
having experienced three murder trials (two at the ‘Old Bailey’ in central London); a
two-year investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission and two appeals at
the Royal Courts of Justice in London. During my incarceration I campaigned against
my conviction and worked with legal teams, private investigators, investigative journal-
ists, forensic experts and supporters, including family and friends. I was contacted by
pressure groups campaigning against miscarriages of justice including INNOCENT,
Miscarriages of Justice UK, United against Injustice, the Miscarriages of Justice
Organisation and Anarchist Black Cross. After my release from imprisonment and fol-
lowing my decision to conduct doctoral research, I approached both primary and sec-
ondary victims to discuss their involvement in a study which aimed to further
understanding into miscarriages of justice, victims discourse and the criminal justice
system. Conducting reflexive ‘insider’ research presented methodological challenges
during the study and research strategies were employed, including the triangulation of
data to ameliorate against possible research bias. An unexpected consequence of the
study was that friendship groups developed between the researcher and researched par-
ticipants, usually after conducting interviews and observation in participants’ family
homes (Jenkins, 2012). The families appeared to regard me as a friend and victim of
miscarriages of justice and not principally as a social scientist. Despite the challenge of
negotiating between the dual roles of researcher and ‘victim’ of miscarriages of justice,
the study produced data that was ‘thick’ (Geertz, 1973) and which provided insight into
the experiences of participants campaigning against wrongful conviction. The process of
engaging with the subject of wrongful conviction and investigating previous locations
and experiences of trauma similarly contributed to my own recovery as a survivor of
wrongful conviction and provided the participants with opportunities to reflect on and
re-assess their own beliefs, preoccupations and attitudes (Jenkins, 2012: 11–13).

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on September 1, 2016

122 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 46(1)

Victims’ perspectives: The trauma of wrongful conviction

and imprisonment
The families of appellants, often the spouse, children, sibling or parents, indicated that
they had suffered significant trauma following the appellant’s wrongful conviction and
imprisonment. Wives and partners stated that coping with family life during the period
of wrongful imprisonment was distressing, particularly in relation to supporting their
children. Most families had experienced extreme financial hardship due to loss of income
(Braman and Wood, 2003; Noble, 1995), with some families being forced to sell or leave
the family home. Twenty-three wives or partners indicated that any disposable income
was used to pay solicitors’ fees and to initiate and support the family’s campaign against
conviction. Partners and wives suggested they had experienced relational difficulties in
the workplace and in their local community. The wife of an appellant convicted of
murder commented:

After he was convicted I couldn’t walk out . . . shopping was hard as I knew people
were whispering about me . . . work was no better . . . sometimes I was ignored . . . if it
wasn’t that I was called names behind my back. (Secondary Victim of Wrongful
Conviction: Participant 3)

Howarth and Rock (2000) examining the impact of serious crime on the relatives of
offenders suggested that many were not accorded sympathy and could not change
others’ negative perceptions regarding their status following the offence. Condry
(2007) similarly examines the issue of ‘family blaming’, whereby the family of offenders
become targets of societal disapproval leading to stigmatisation. It appeared that some
viewed the relatives of ‘offenders’ as being less than wholly innocent. Goffman (1963: 3)
defined stigma in his eponymous book as ‘ . . . an attribute that is deeply discrediting’.
Most families, including their children, shared that they had been labelled, stereotyped
and discriminated against because of their family’s experience of wrongful conviction.
The sister of an appellant since released by the Court of Appeal commented:

Now things are good but when he was convicted it was like we had contributed to him doing
it . . . my mother was treated as if she was responsible . . . people in my area even blamed me
for starting up his campaign. (Secondary Victim: Participant 1)

Morris (1965) found that feelings of stigma were experienced primarily by wives
whose husbands were imprisoned for the first time and usually at the beginning of
their imprisonment. Fourteen wives or partners in this study, however, suggested that
their feelings of stigmatisation continued throughout the imprisonment, leading many to
exchange previous friendship groups and familiar places for locations where they were
not known and to associate with others similarly affected by miscarriages of justice.
Some wives and mothers found that their experience of being stigmatised receded fol-
lowing the appellant’s referral back to the Court of Appeal via the Criminal Cases
Review Commission (Keirle, 2010). A referral back to the Court of Appeal appeared
to persuade friends and neighbours that the protestations of innocence by the appellant
and family must have some merit as so few appeared to be referred following the loss of

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on September 1, 2016

Jenkins 123

their first appeal. A mother who had been the target of insults following her son’s
conviction for murder commented:

It’s always been hard for us but when we heard the CCRC were sending him back [to the
Court of Appeal] then it did change for us . . . people wished me luck and said positive
things . . . it made a difference. (Secondary Victim: Participant 49)

The wives, mothers and girlfriends of victims suggested, however, that although their
lives had improved in terms of feeling less stigmatised following the appellant’s referral
back to Court of Appeal, most indicated that their lives actually ceased being their own
from the moment of conviction, and that since the quashing of the conviction their lives
continued to be negatively affected by their experience of victimisation.
In relation to the discourse of innocence, secondary victims indicated that belief in the
innocence of the appellant had sustained them through disappointments and setbacks
while fighting the conviction. The families in all cases did not believe that their son,
father or husband might be guilty and could not understand why, having reviewed the
evidence, a jury had convicted. The families regarded factual innocence as axiomatic to
notions of wrongful conviction and were usually supported by support groups who
similarly stressed that their purpose was to support people campaigning for wrongfully
convicted ‘innocent’ appellants (London against Injustice, 2012). Quirk (2007: 776)
examining the concept of innocence suggests that ‘ . . . despite the moral and political
impact of innocence cases . . . it is imperative to resist allowing the criminal justice debate
to degenerate into competing claims of guilt versus innocence’. Quirk’s argument is that
in most cases it is impossible to know if a defendant is factually innocent and that raising
the threshold by which appellants have their convictions quashed would result in poor
justice and the abrogation of fundamental due process safeguards. Roberts (2003) like-
wise suggests that focusing on innocence could undermine the administration of due
process and unwittingly lead to more miscarriages of justice. For the released victims of
wrongful imprisonment and their families, however, the issue of innocence was of para-
mount importance and reflected not only on their campaign but how they conceptualised
their sense of identity and notions of ‘self’. Goffman (1963: 5), examining issues of
personal identity in public institutions (including prisons), suggests that some individuals
‘possess . . . an undesired differentness’ and that this can lead to such persons seeking
ways to adjust to their situation. For some participants their sense of identity appeared
to be ‘spoiled’ following the charge and conviction, and their campaign of innocence
appeared to represent an opportunity to transform their perceptions of self.

Children of the appellant and wrongful conviction

For children caught up in the criminal justice system, when a parent is wrongfully con-
victed the consequences are similarly traumatic and distressing. At a recent demonstra-
tion in London on 9 October 2010 organised by activists campaigning against
miscarriage of justice, a significant number of children attended the march from
Trafalgar Square to Parliament. The effects, however, of imprisonment generally on
children are difficult to assess as it involves examination of related features that include
involvement with the criminal justice process and imprisonment, as well as poverty and

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on September 1, 2016

124 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 46(1)

social exclusion (Travis and Waul, 2003). Similarly, the experiences of individual chil-
dren suggest that a range of viewpoints needs to be considered (Boswell, 2002).
Although studies indicate that in neighbourhoods with high imprisonment rates chil-
dren might feel less stigma (Schwartz and Weintraub, 1974), the sense of injustice and
misunderstanding concerning wrongful conviction can sometimes place additional
strains on the families of appellants. Despite the difficulties posed in assessing the nega-
tive effects of imprisonment on children, certain characteristics suggest that the impris-
onment of a parent feels like ‘bereavement’, with children exhibiting behaviours and
emotions linked to the processes of grieving (Van Nijnatten, 1998).
Children suffer many problems as a consequence of a parent being imprisoned,
including depression, aggressive behaviour, regression, eating disorders and poor
school performance (Boswell and Wedge, 2002; Sharp and Marcus-Mendoza, 2001;
Stanton, 1980). Other psychological consequences include withdrawal, detachment,
low self-esteem and behavioural problems (Eddy and Reid, 2003; Johnston, 1995;
Philbrick, 1996). Some children blame themselves, particularly if they are not present
when the parent is first arrested (Mazza, 2002). Alternatively children sometimes suffer
from the consequences of being present at the parent’s arrest leading to feelings of shock,
stress, confusion and instability (Van Nijnatten, 1998). A participant aged 15 years old
commented:

It was the worst day of my life . . . they arrived early in the morning and arrested him and
took him away from me . . . I was in the room when they handcuffed him . . . I thought for
years I should have done something to stop them. (Secondary Victim: Participant 128)

While it is difficult to assess the level of suffering felt by children, research suggests
that the experience of parental imprisonment does generate negative consequences
(Boswell and Wedge, 2001). While many of the negative consequences of long-term
imprisonment are experienced by the rightly and wrongfully convicted alike, the
victim of wrongful conviction and their family appear to suffer the pains of injustice
leading to ‘chronic feelings of bitterness’ and ‘unresolved feelings of loss’ (Grounds,
2004: 170). Many families spoke of the resentment they felt against criminal justice
agencies and that their lives had changed irrevocably despite the quashing of the con-
viction. For the children of appellants, the wrongful conviction of a parent sometimes
resulted in them breaking criminal laws, leading to confrontation with the police. The
teenage son of a victim of wrongful conviction commented that his life started to disin-
tegrate after his father lost his first appeal:

It hit me hard when he went to prison because I always knew he hadn’t done it . . . I thought
the Court of Appeal would see that . . . when he lost his appeal I went off the rails . . . got into
trouble . . . I wanted to hurt the police because of what they’d done to my dad . . . it was all
madness. (Secondary Victim: Participant 141)

Murray and Farrington (2005) highlight the effects of parental imprisonment on boys’
anti-social behaviour, arguing that imprisonment leads to risk factors for delinquency.
While Sack’s (1977) study of eight boys with fathers in prison suggested that the boys
had mimicked their fathers’ criminality, the children of wrongfully convicted appellants

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on September 1, 2016

Jenkins 125

appeared to engage in anti-social behaviour as a means of challenging authority, par-

ticularly against criminal justice agencies. Two girls and five boys from wrongfully con-
victed families had engaged in serious anti-social behaviour leading to censure
either from their school or the police, but the children indicated that their behaviour
was a direct response to their father’s wrongful conviction and their family’s suffering.
The 16-year-old daughter of a released appellant commented:

For us it was hard because they’d taken my dad like he was something bad . . . I wasn’t being
told to do this and that as if life went on normally . . . everything changed for us so I didn’t
cooperate with anyone. (Secondary Victim: Participant 53)

Thirteen children of appellants were interviewed for this study and nine indicated that
they had been bullied and suffered from the stigma associated with a parent’s conviction
and imprisonment. Most had been teased at school and three children had been harassed
by the local media. All the children indicated that their experiences had led to profound
unhappiness, culminating in depression and loss of confidence, with some reporting that
they had lost friends and access to important social circles.
During the period of wrongful imprisonment, the children chose to visit their parent
and indicated that they enjoyed the experience despite finding the visiting procedures,
including the use of closed visits (behind glass) stressful, as articulated by Boswell and
Wedge (2002). The children suggested that visits were often highly emotional affairs,
with the visitors and appellant crying or oscillating between extreme sadness and exhil-
aration. At the close of the visit 11 children stated that they suffered from emotional
fatigue which often lasted for several days afterwards. The young participants indicated,
however, that the visits were an important means of demonstrating to their imprisoned
parent that they believed in their innocence. Some indicated that visiting their parent was
an opportunity for them to contribute to the campaign against conviction. As one
interviewee stated:

I couldn’t do a lot during our campaign but visiting dad was my way of saying I’m fighting
for you. (Secondary Victim: Participant 67)

Ten children indicated that involvement in their parent’s ‘campaign of innocence’

(Secondary Victim: Participant 4) was a crucial aspect of how they viewed their identi-
fication with their imprisoned parent and how they remained resilient during the period
of imprisonment. The teenage daughter of an appellant since released by the Court of
Appeal commented on the arrival of the Statement of Reasons from the CCRC outlining
the Commission’s decision to refer back to the Court of Appeal:

I was so happy when it arrived . . . we read it together as a family and we read it all
night . . . afterwards my mum put it on the mantelpiece so we could all look at it . . . it was
like a symbol of dad’s innocence . . . it stayed there until he was free. (Secondary Victim:
Participant 41)

A particular concern for six children was coping with the strain of knowing that their
parent was being pressurised by prison staff to accept responsibility for their ‘offence’,

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on September 1, 2016

126 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 46(1)

despite protesting their innocence. Naughton (2005: 2) argues that the Prison Service
‘ . . . does not allow for the possibility that some life prisoners might be innocent of the
crimes for which they were convicted’. Eight appellants indicated they were unwilling to
participate in their annual life sentence planning meetings and were not prepared to
cooperate with the prison service, including psychology staff. This act of resistance
placed additional strain on the appellant which was then discerned by the appellant’s
family during prison visits or telephone calls. An interviewee who was ten years old at
the time of his father’s wrongful conviction commented:

My dad got really upset with them persuading him to say he’s guilty . . . when we saw him on
visits he got really quiet afterwards . . . I got badly upset afterwards as well. (Secondary
Victim: Participant 91)

For the appellants, too, visits from the family, particularly their children, were an
important means of bonding and symbolically demonstrating the family’s need to ‘stick
together’ and ‘fight the conviction’ (Secondary Victim: Participant: 64). The desire of the
family, including the children, to campaign was a feature of many families’ lives. Some
family members were similarly involved in direct action strategies to contest the convic-
tion of an appellant, including demonstrations and attendance at retrials and appeals to
support other members of the miscarriages of justice community. Five children had
become politicised through campaigning and protesting, and as young adults had now
become seasoned activists. A mother discussing her daughter commented:

She’s always been interested in things around her but when her father was convicted she just
threw herself into the campaign and that led her joining other groups. (Secondary Victim:
Participant: 71)

Codd (2008: 63), discussing the impact of imprisonment on children, argues that it
‘ . . . does not fit into neat categories’, particularly as the impact of imprisonment will be
interlinked with other ‘life circumstances’. As such the research literature indicates that
children can experience ‘ . . . some, any or all of a range of consequences’ (Codd, 2008:
78). In relation to the experiences of children who have suffered the trauma of a parent
being wrongfully convicted, the question remains whether their ordeal of parental
imprisonment differs from that of other children of imprisoned parents? While it is
the case that the children interviewed in this study shared many characteristics with
other children coping with a parent’s imprisonment, an important difference appears
to be their association with pressure groups, protest activities and campaigns against
injustice. Most children had become politically engaged through their parent’s campaign
against conviction and attended demonstrations, campaign meetings and family events
‘remembering’ the appellant. Four children attended legal meetings with their mother
and were familiar with the nomenclature of the legal profession and criminal justice
system. Three children had joined other protest groups concerned with issues of social
justice, in addition to campaigning against wrongful conviction. The families viewed
their campaign and ‘activism’ as a form of political engagement against the criminal
justice system and against agencies operating in the system. For many ‘new’ cam-
paigners, the wrongful conviction of a parent consumed their lives particularly during

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on September 1, 2016

Jenkins 127

the initial process of familiarisation with the criminal justice system and with the
miscarriages of justice community. What was significant was that through the process
of recovery some families began to see the wrongful conviction more in terms of
systemic error and with those processes and procedures that lead to errors in justice.
For some participants wider political engagement contributed to their sense of
‘empowerment’ (Savage et al., 2007: 19) and ultimately to their recovery as secondary
victims of wrongful conviction. The children shared in the process of campaign and
from feeling isolated at school and in their local community were able to identify with
another community, namely the miscarriages of justice community through campaign
and pressure groups. Although the children indicated that campaigning and attending
campaign meetings had empowered and supported them while their parent was impri-
soned, the return of the parent to the family home continued to frustrate the equilib-
rium of the family.
Sixteen primary victims of wrongful conviction stated that they continued to suffer
from symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress syndrome. During their imprison-
ment their feelings of despair had been assuaged by the belief that the conviction would
eventually be quashed. The release of the appellant, however, following the quashed
conviction, often generated other problems regarding adjustment both for the appellant
and their family. Grounds (2004: 172) found that some released appellants suffered from
‘lost time’. They had become ‘dislocated in time’ and often thought of themselves psy-
chologically as feeling the age they were at the time of their conviction. This created
problems when mixing with peers who had progressed to ‘different stages of life’
(Grounds, 2004: 172). For some wrongfully imprisoned participants the distress of
being separated from their children was the hardest aspect of imprisonment. On their
release, most victims of wrongful imprisonment had difficulty rebuilding relationships
with their children, some of whom were now young adults.

Release and adjustment following wrongful imprisonment

The victims of wrongful conviction indicated that on their release they suffered with
issues of adaptation, particularly in relation to adapting to home life and living with
family members. Grounds (2004: 171) found that at a psychological level, released vic-
tims of wrongful conviction had coped with their prison suffering by ‘blocking off pain-
ful feelings’ and isolating themselves from the prison regime. The desire of many victims
of wrongful conviction to ‘prove their innocence’ often leads them to focus wholly on
their cases and evidential matters during imprisonment and to cut themselves off emo-
tionally from partners and family, and although back with their families they continued
to adopt the same strategies of ‘withdrawal, self-isolation and uncommunicativeness’
(Grounds, 2004: 171). This often had the effect of creating tension and upset in the home
as family members struggled to understand their behaviour (Jamieson and Grounds,
2005: 45). While some successful appellants indicated they had difficulty post-release
with various practical skills such as using a mobile telephone or driving a car again,
13 stated that engagement with close family relationships was their principal challenge.
True feelings and concerns had been hidden from their families during their imprison-
ment in order to protect them from further worry (Jamieson and Grounds, 2005).

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on September 1, 2016

128 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 46(1)

The emotional intimacy they had known before imprisonment had now been lost.
Jamieson and Grounds (2005: 54–58) in their re-evaluation of the ‘prison effects’ litera-
ture concluded that while their empirical data focused on the wrongfully convicted it
similarly resonated in prison effects literature more generally. Although these ‘general’
effects can be seen to apply to the lives of the wrongfully convicted post-release
(Grounds, 2004: 178), this study suggests that the injustice experienced by victims of
wrongful conviction and their families creates psychological and emotional problems
that are particularly severe and long lasting. Specifically, 32 participants, including
secondary victims, felt unable to heal while the State refused to acknowledge their
injustice by offering an apology. Other participants indicated that despite receiving
psychotherapy and rebuilding their lives, they continued to return to past memories
and remained bitter and resentful that they had been convicted for an offence they did
not do. The accompanying sense of injustice meant that the victims of wrongful con-
viction did not feel able to ‘let it go’ (Victim of Wrongful Conviction: Participant 11).
They desired emotional healing but were unable to move on and forget about the
injustices perpetuated against them.
Although many problems experienced on release have their roots in the negative
consequences of wrongful conviction and imprisonment, some relational problems
appeared to be associated with tensions concerning the continuance of the appellant’s
campaign to either reopen the investigation or pursue claims against the investigating
police force. Eighteen released victims of wrongful conviction were unable to cease
campaigning, and for some the experience of protest seemed to provide a moral career
and opportunities to contextualise their experiences. Although some families under-
stood the appellant’s need to engage with others challenging criminal justice agencies,
11 families believed that the bitterness and resentment felt by the appellant actually
undermined the family and their ability to begin the process of recovery and healing.
Rock (1998: 47) stated that survivors associated with victim groups ‘ . . . are exception-
ally prone to divorce’. Eight released appellants interviewed for this study had
divorced or separated from their spouse or partner within two years of the appellant’s
return to the family home. Fifteen wives or partners stated that on the appellant’s
return they had displayed negative personality traits including irritability, moodiness,
uncommunicativeness, lethargy and detachment. Some suffered from insomnia, night-
mares and flashbacks of their prison experiences. Their ‘obsession’ with the case and
other evidential matters appeared to undermine their relationships, leading to some
released appellants becoming estranged from their campaign team, usually led by a
spouse, parent or sibling.
The reactions of secondary victims to wrongful conviction and imprisonment post-
release were varied with participants displaying reactions and behaviours that were
sometimes markedly different from other victims who had also experienced a miscarriage
of justice. Families suffered in contrasting ways with some feeling unable to respond to
their situation due to lethargy, while others chose to fight through involvement with
protest groups. Any analysis of the harm caused by victimisation through wrongful
conviction needs to recognise that victims are not one homogenous group and that
different people react in contrasting ways to victimisation (Savage et al., 2007). There
is no one response to a trauma, and while it is possible to discern patterns of behaviour
for the purpose of understanding victimisation, it can never be assumed that a particular

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on September 1, 2016

Jenkins 129

crime or experience will generate a specific or stereotypical response from a victim

(Walklate, 2007; Wolhuter et al., 2009). A related issue raised by Wortman (1983) is
that different victim responses can elicit contrasting reactions from those people around
them. Anger and bitterness from the victim can sometimes generate negative responses
from friends and family, and this in turn might influence the victim’s emotional recovery.
The challenges faced were often severe and impacted on every aspect of their lives.
Twenty-six families stated they had received little or no psychological or emotional
support, other than meeting other secondary victims attending support groups con-
cerned with miscarriages of justice.

Divided families: Appellants and ‘victims’ from the same

nuclear family
Most secondary victims described a range of negative feelings and physical symptoms
associated with wrongful imprisonment. These, however, were often more extreme
when the victim of wrongful conviction and the victim of crime both came from the
same nuclear family. The trauma experienced by people over the death of a spouse or
child is particularly acute, with survivors often sharing that ‘ . . . in a single instant,
their lives were fundamentally changed’ (Wortman et al., 1997: 109). This level of
secondary victimisation is often severe, with the survivor feeling confused, emotionally
damaged and helpless (Rando, 1993). In cases where the death is the responsibility of
someone, feelings of anger and rage are often directed against the perpetrator (Rock,
1998). These feelings of intense anger last for long periods, which in turn drain the
victim emotionally (Parkes, 1993). Participants convicted of murdering their spouse or
other close family member indicated that they continued to experience nightmares,
headaches, depression and profound sadness. A consequence of the severity of their
experiences is that most continue to suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD), which is regarded as ‘the most common and severe type of post-trauma
mental health problem that can occur’ (Freedy and Donkervolt, 1995: 9). During
the early stages of the criminal investigation the defendant and other secondary victims
are inevitably coming to terms with their loss. At a time when the family are grieving
the death of a family member and coping with bereavement they then have to nego-
tiate their way through the criminal justice system (Walklate, 1989). In addition to the
suffering experienced by victims of crime, there has been a growing awareness that
some victims might experience secondary victimisation through involvement with the
procedures and processes of the criminal justice system, leading to what Dunn (2007:
267) refers to as ‘re-victimisation’. This might involve the emotional impact of giving
evidence in court (Rock, 1998; Dunn and Shephard, 2006); insensitive questioning by
the police (Zedner, 2002) or the adversarial system of justice, which by focusing solely
on the defence and prosecution might undermine the needs of victims (Sanders and
Jones, 2007). The adversarial system involves cross-examination which is considered
one of the most significant forms of secondary victimisation (Soothill and Soothill,
1993). Most victims of wrongful conviction and their families indicated that their
experiences of the criminal justice system had contributed to undermining their self-
confidence and ability to recover from their experiences.

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on September 1, 2016

130 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 46(1)

For secondary victims campaigning for and supporting an appellant who has been
convicted of murdering a family member, the experience felt like a double trauma. The
wife of an appellant convicted of murdering his wife’s mother commented:

I stuck by him because I knew he was innocent but being there for him and trying to stay
strong and coping that mum had been murdered was more than I could cope with . . . I had a
nervous breakdown . . . terrible days. (Secondary Victim: Participant 101)

Another secondary victim was similarly devastated when her partner was wrongfully
convicted of manslaughter for the death of her child. Rock (1998: 30) comments on
bereavement after homicide and suggests that the homicide of children is ‘especially
disturbing’ and that ‘ . . . it is a mode of bereavement probably quite unlike the
‘‘normal’’ grieving process’. The participant described her feelings of profound loss fol-
lowing the death of her son which resulted in her receiving psychiatric intervention and
counselling to cope with depression and anxiety. Immediately following the conviction
the mother of the victim used avoidance techniques whereby reminders of the trauma
(places, people, sounds and smells) were evaded (Freedy and Donkervolt, 1995). After
the conviction of her partner the participant continued to support his campaign for
justice and worked with the appellant’s parents to campaign against his conviction.
The conviction has since been quashed. The mother and interviewee commented:

It’s been such a long and dreadful journey that I don’t know how to begin talking about
it . . . my life feels like it’s on hold until I die . . . nothing can ever, ever be the same again.
(Secondary Victim: Participant 122)

The psychological and emotional strain of coping with bereavement following the death
of her child and coping with the incarceration of her partner was to have serious impli-
cations on her emotional equilibrium, leading to her later hospitalisation.
Lepore, Silver, Wortman and Wayment (1996) found that the intensity felt by some
victims’ suffering bereavement from the death of a spouse or child generated feelings of
guilt, despair and restlessness and in some cases to physical illness. Rock (1998: 40)
examining self-help groups supporting those suffering bereavement after violent death
similarly uses the language of post-traumatic stress disorder to describe the impact of
their situation arguing that the bereaved can feel ‘ . . . numb, shocked, anxious, ener-
vated, breathless . . . they may have impaired memory, palpitations, headaches, panic
attacks . . . nightmares, hallucinations and wild imaginings’. Following release and the
return of the successful appellant to the family home, personal relationships often came
under pressure through deterioration in communication, intimacy and sexual function.
As one interviewee commented:

When he came back he found it difficult to talk . . . he was silent for lots of the time . . . we felt
like strangers to one another . . . eventually we stopped sleeping together . . . we decided to
split up last year. (Secondary Victim: Participant 52)

Three participants who had been wrongfully convicted of murdering their spouse
returned to their parents’ home. These ‘victims’ of wrongful conviction indicated

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on September 1, 2016

Jenkins 131

that they sometimes found annual reminders of the deceased such as anniversaries
and birthdays or other events that triggered shared memories distressing. These
experiences often kindled a desire for the presence of the deceased (Rando, 1993;
Rock, 1998) and the continuation of the trauma through ‘the survivor’s life cycle’
(Herman, 1992: 211). An interviewee wrongfully convicted of murdering his girl-
friend commented:

She was my life when we were together . . . certain days are really hard for me . . . our anni-
versary and her birthday . . . but there are so many memories . . . good ones but they still leave
me feeling devastated. (Victim of Wrongful Conviction: Participant 46)

Eleven families were recovering from the ordeal of a serious crime committed against
a son or daughter, including murder, manslaughter or sexual offences, where a member
of the family had been wrongfully convicted for the offence but subsequently released by
the Court of Appeal. In these circumstances the trauma experienced by the family was
extreme and often led to fractions and estrangement when the appellant was released.
During a participant’s campaign to fight her husband’s conviction, they had remained
together to ‘clear the family’s name’ but the experience of wrongful imprisonment and
stigma associated with the offence, contributed to the couple’s later estrangement.
The wife of the appellant commented:

It was just too much for us . . . bad memories about everything about the case . . . when I was
home the memories of everything just flooded in . . . We reached the point where we had
nothing left to give each other. (Victim of Wrongful Conviction: Participant 49)

In terms of the reactions of men and women to the death of a child, Wortman, Battle
and Lemkau (1997: 122) suggest that marriages sometimes become strained because men
and women ‘often grieve differently’. Walklate (1993) points out that societal attitudes to
crying might similarly impact on victims’ response to victimisation, with crying deemed
more ‘acceptable’ in some cultures, and for women more so than men. Some family
members, including the sons of appellants, found situations where their father cried or
‘sobbed’ disconcerting. Four boys stated they had never witnessed their father crying
before and that the act of watching their father openly ‘grieve’ in the family home was
‘difficult to cope with’ (Secondary Victim: Participant 138).
The reaction of other male participants was markedly different. Socialised into
refraining from shows of emotion brought on by painful feelings, 12 released victims
of wrongful conviction prioritised staying busy. Riches and Dawson (1996) suggest
that men often prefer to stay busy as a coping mechanism when dealing with family
distress. Women on the other hand tend to be more expressive and often find solace in
talking about the tragedy (Wortman et al., 1997: 122). The complication for the mar-
riage is if the woman interprets her partner’s lack of expression, and desire to engage
in work-related tasks, as indifference towards the tragedy. This is consistent with
Charman and Savage (2009: 9) who cite Martin and Doka’s (2000) findings of the
‘intuitive’ griever (focusing on the vocalising of emotion and feeling) and ‘instrumental’
griever (with its emphasis on problem-solving rather than sharing emotional placement
and feelings). This literature suggests that gender role socialisation not only impacts on

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on September 1, 2016

132 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 46(1)

notions of societal expectation regarding how women and men can react to tragedy,
but similarly influences the coping strategies adopted by the two sexes. Women, rather
than finding consolation through work-related activities often engage in ‘personal
investigation into the circumstances relating to the loss’ (Charman and Savage,
2009: 9) or through a ‘search for meaning’ (2009: 10). The differential response of
men, however, does not mean that they suffer less from the loss but that their response
is often ‘more private and internalized’ (Charman and Savage, 2009: 9; Wortman,
1983). The focus, however, in these circumstances should be on the psychological
harm caused by the trauma itself and not on the personal characteristics of the sur-
vivor (Wortman et al., 1997). Most women in this study did engage with activities that
enabled them to search for meaning and understanding, often through working with
other women associated with pressure groups concerned with injustice. The men, how-
ever, whether released victims of wrongful conviction or male secondary victims,
sought more private forms of release, either through engagement with work or hob-
bies. Those appellants who continued to campaign usually sought to do so privately
and without the support of other protest groups.
An associated complication for five families where the victim and appellant came
from the same nuclear family concerned the level of familial support the appellant
and secondary victims received from other family members. Rock (1998: 47), examining
victim groups, suggested that when the victim and the offender come from the same
family ‘ . . . relations will . . . be riddled by divided allegiances, feuds, and moral ambigu-
ities’. A participant convicted of a sexual offence (later quashed at the Court of Appeal)
against a woman from his own extended family indicated:

They wanted to support me but they had split loyalties about that too . . . my family knew
what I was going through but they also knew that supporting me was like saying they didn’t
believe her. (Victim of Wrongful Conviction: Participant 51)

Relationships between appellants and members of their campaign team were some-
times strained as the appellants tried to cope with the loss of their spouse, a close
family member or false allegations made by a member of their family. A complication
for these appellants is that most campaigns and support networks are set up and
managed by the family (Charman and Savage, 2009). Where the deceased victim or
secondary victims are part of the ‘primary family’ this can create major obstacles to
family cohesiveness which undermine the resilience and motivation of some family
members to support the released appellant. It also creates relational difficulties between
the families as each attempt to cope with the dilemma of wanting to support the
defendant while also supporting the victim of the offence (where alive) or other sec-
ondary victims. For the children of a parent wrongfully convicted of an offence against
a family member the parent’s release from imprisonment is never straightforward.
Eight children interviewed found the arrival of the released parent to the family
home stressful. Others found communicating with the parent difficult, despite having
visited them regularly while in prison. The children were aware that their parents’
relationship was under strain and indicated that family arguments, usually between
their parents, left the family feeling emotionally bruised. One boy aged 17 years old at
the time of the interview suggested that his father’s return left him feeling angry about

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on September 1, 2016

Jenkins 133

‘all the trouble’, despite knowing that his father was not responsible for the offence or
his imprisonment. The interviewee commented:

I couldn’t get my head around everything that had happened to us . . . it was bad enough
going to the prison but at least we got back home and could get on with things . . . my
dad back home was like really stressful . . . there was no let up. (Secondary Victim:
Participant 91)

The pains of wrongful conviction and imprisonment affected the victims psychologic-
ally, physically and financially. Most indicated that their family life had been decimated
and that the ability of the released appellant to recover from their experiences was
significantly affected by the quality of support they received individually and as a
family. Forty-seven participants interviewed in this study continued to suffer psycho-
logically from their experiences, and those who had suffered bereavement from the
death of a spouse, child or other close family member indicated that their feelings of
loss had not receded, and, in some cases, their pain was just as severe. In these circum-
stances their pain and inability to recover appeared to be exacerbated by their sense of
injustice; and, that a member of their family had been wrongfully convicted for the
offence.

Conclusion
For the victims of miscarriages of justice and their families the moment of arrest and
criminal charge, leading to wrongful conviction, was a defining moment in their lives.
The participants could remember the minutia of the moment in detail. Sixteen appellants
interviewed for this study were not ‘career criminals’ and were not emotionally prepared
for the trauma of being falsely accused, arrested and charged. Although 16 participants
indicated they had problems coping with life post-release, others suggested that their
primary problems were adapting to family life following imprisonment. Eight victims of
wrongful conviction stated that they had divorced or separated from their spouse or
partner within two years of release. For other appellants the loss of their spouse or
partner during imprisonment contributed to their being classified as homeless within
six months of release. Five appellants chose to use night shelters or sleep on friends’ or
acquaintances floors. Two appellants chose to sleep rough because local day centres
reminded them of prison. The result of leading nomadic lives, moving from room to
room, encouraged some appellants to distance themselves from support networks. This
level of detachment appeared to be the result of their imprisonment and associated
feelings of marginalisation and alienation.
For the families of appellants counted as secondary victims, the trauma was often just
as distressing. Many families had suffered financial loss following the arrest and convic-
tion. Their lives had to adjust to their new circumstances, particularly as many mothers
now had the sole responsibility for bringing up their children. A significant financial
burden for most wives and partners was in initiating and managing the appellant’s
campaign against the conviction. A variety of expenses were discussed including solici-
tors’ fees, travel to and from the legal team, prison visits and travel to other locations
where the secondary victims could network and seek support. Twenty-four families

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on September 1, 2016

134 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 46(1)

indicated they had experienced the stigmatisation associated with a family member being
convicted of a serious offence. Seven families had moved to other parts of the country or
had changed jobs due to being harassed by work colleagues. Others moved closer to the
appellant’s prison.
Most family members indicated they had suffered psychologically (anxiety, depression,
panic attacks) and physically (headaches, irritable bowel syndrome). The children of
appellants had also suffered. Matthews (1983: 15) has described prisoners’ children as
the ‘forgotten victims’ of crime. All the children interviewed for this study described their
experiences with candour and sadness that their lives had been injured. Many acknowl-
edged they had suffered psychologically, with nine participants stating in interviews that
they had received counselling sessions organised by their mother or through their local
school. Most had chosen to move schools regularly and this had also impacted on their
school performance and ability to join friendship groups. The children indicated they had
visited their father while imprisoned and that these meetings had usually been enjoyable
and comforting. Despite the joy of seeing their father released from the Court of Appeal,
eight children stated that their ability to communicate with their father had deteriorated
since his return to the family home. The wives and partners of released appellants simi-
larly indicated that their relationship had suffered since the imprisonment. While the
reasons for estrangement were often complex, many wives and partners believed the
breakdown in the relationship was caused by the wrongful conviction and imprisonment
of their husband or partner. Fifteen women indicated that their relationship was not able
to recover, despite both parties attempting to heal from their experiences. In some cases it
was the appellant who had left the family home. Most campaigns and support groups for
the appellant had been managed by the appellant’s wife or partner. When the victim of
wrongful conviction was released, five stated that they needed to be removed from people,
locations and places which reminded them of their experiences. For many successful
appellants this involved people who reminded them of their arrest and conviction, includ-
ing ‘past’ solicitors and supporters. In some cases it also included their partner, particu-
larly if they had organised the campaign and liaised with the legal team. When the victim
of crime (where alive) and the defendant both come from the same nuclear family then the
consequences on the defendant and their family can be catastrophic. Following the con-
viction many families disintegrated while they tried to come to terms with their losses.
Others continued to support the appellant, believing them to be innocent of the offence.
Most suffered severe symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress syndrome, includ-
ing feelings of hopelessness, anger and detachment. Secondary victims in this study
indicated that they continued to suffer from the trauma of their losses. For the children,
their experiences had literally changed their lives forever.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to express his gratitude for the comments provided by the two anonymous
referees.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-
for-profit sectors.

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on September 1, 2016

Jenkins 135

References
Ashworth A and Redmayne M (2005) The Criminal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Batt J (2005) Stolen Innocence: The Sally Clarke Story – A Mother’s Fight for Justice. London:
Ebury Press.
Boswell G (2002) Imprisoned fathers: The children’s view. The Howard Journal 41(1): 14–26.
Boswell G and Wedge P (2002) Imprisoned Fathers and their Children. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Braman D and Wood J (2003) From one generation to the next: How criminal sanctions are
reshaping family life in urban America. In: Travis A and Waul M (eds) Prisoners Once
Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families, and Communities.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press, pp. 157–188.
Charman S and Savage S (2009) Mothers for justice: Gender and campaigns against miscarriages
of justice. British Journal of Criminology. Epub ahead of print 26 August.
Codd H (2008) In the Shadow of Prison: Families, Imprisonment and Criminal Justice. Cullompton:
Willan Publishing.
Condry R (2007) Families Shamed: The Consequences of Crime for Relatives of Serious Offenders.
Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Dunn P (2007) Matching service delivery to need. In: Walklate S (ed.) Handbook of Victims and
Victimology. Cullompton: Willan, pp. 255–281.
Dunn P and Shephard E (2006) Oral testimony from the witness’s perspective – psychological
and forensic considerations. In: Heaton-Armstrong A, Shephard E, Gudjonsson G and
Wolchover D (eds) Witness Testimony: Psychological, Investigative and Evidential
Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eddy JM and Reid J (2003) The adolescent children of incarcerated parents. In: Travis J and
Waul M (eds) Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Re-entry on
Children, Families and Communities. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Freedy JR and Donkervolt JC (1995) Traumatic stress: An overview of the field. In: Freedy JR
and Hobfoll SE (eds) Traumatic Stress: From Theory to Practice. New York: Plenum,
pp. 3–28.
Geertz C (1973) Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. The Interpretation of
Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.
Goffman E (1963) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Grounds A (2004) Psychological consequences of wrongful conviction and imprisonment.
Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 46: 165–182.
Herman JL (1992) Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books.
Howarth G and Rock P (2000) Aftermath and the construction of victimisation: ‘the other victims
of crime’. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 39(1): 58–77.
Hungerford-Welch P (2009) Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, 7th edn. Oxford: Routledge-
Cavendish.
Jamieson R and Grounds A (2005) Release and adjustment: Perspectives from studies of wrongly
convicted and politically motivated prisoners. In: Liebling A and Maruna S (eds) The Effects of
Imprisonment. Cullompton: Willan, pp. 33–66.
Jenkins S (2012) Methodological challenges of conducting ‘insider’ reflexive research with the
miscarriages of justice community. Epub ahead of print, http://www.tandfonline.com.
Johnston D (1995) Effects of parental incarceration. In: Gabel K and Johnston D (eds) Children of
Incarcerated Parents. New York: Lexington Books, pp. 59–88.
Keirle H (2010) Thoughts from a victim support worker. In: Naughton M (ed.)
The Criminal Cases Review Commission. Hope for the Innocent? Basingstoke: Palgrave,
pp. 41–46.

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on September 1, 2016

136 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 46(1)

Lepore SJ, Silver RC, Wortman CB and Wayment HA (1996) Social constraints, intrusive
thoughts, and depressive symptoms among bereaved mothers. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 70(2): 271–282.
London against Injustice (2012) Wrongly convicted by the British justice system? Available at
http://www.londonagainstinjustice.co.uk/
Martin T and Doka K (2000) Men Don’t Cry. . . Women Do: Transcending Gender Stereotypes of
Grief. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.
Matthews J (1983) Forgotten Victims. London: NACRO.
Mazza K (2002) And then the world fell apart: The children of incarcerated fathers. Families in
Society 83(5/6): 521–529.
Morris P (1965) Prisoners and their Families. Woking: Unwin Brothers.
Murray J and Farrington DP (2005) Parental imprisonment: Effects on boys’ antisocial behaviour
and delinquency through the life-course. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46(12):
1269–1278.
Naughton M (2005) Why the failure of the prison service and the parole board to acknowledge
wrongful imprisonment is untenable. Howard Journal 44: 263–272.
Noble C (1995) Prisoners’ Families: The Everyday Reality. Ipswich: Ormiston Children and
Families Trust.
Nobles R and Schiff D (2002) The right to appeal and workable systems of justice. Modern Law
Review 65(5): 676–701.
Parkes CM (1993) Psychiatric problems following bereavement by murder or manslaughter.
British Journal of Psychiatry 162: 49–54.
Philbrick D (1996) Child and adolescent mental health and the prisoner’s child. Paper presented at
The Child and the Prison Conference, Grey College, Durham.
Quirk H (2007) Identifying miscarriages of justice: Why innocence in the UK is not the answer.
Modern Law Review 70(5): 759–777.
Rando TA (1993) Treatment of Complicated Mourning. Champaign: Research Press.
Riches G and Dawson P (1996) Communities of feeling: The culture of bereaved parents.
Mortality 1: 143–161.
Roberts S (2003) Unsafe convictions: Defining and compensating miscarriages of justice. Modern
Law Review 3: 441–451.
Rock P (1998) After Homicide. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sack WH (1977) Children of imprisoned fathers. Psychiatry 40: 163–174.
Sanders A and Jones I (2007) The victim in court. In: Walklate S (ed.) Handbook of Victims and
Victimology. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, pp. 282–308.
Savage S, Poyser S and Grieve J (2007) Putting wrongs to right: Campaigns against miscarriage of
justice. Criminology and Criminal Justice 7(1): 83–105.
Schwartz MC and Weintraub JF (1974) The prisoner’s wife: A study in crisis. Federal Probation
38: 20–27.
Simon RI (1993) The psychological and legal aftermath of false arrest and imprisonment. Bulletin
of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law 21: 523–528.
Sharp SF and Marcus-Mendoza ST (2001) It’s a family affair: Incarcerated women and their
families. Women and Criminal Justice 12: 21–50.
Shaikh T (2007) Sally Clarke, mother wrongly convicted of killing her sons, found dead at home.
The Guardian 17 March.
Soothill K and Soothill D (1993) Prosecuting the victim? A study of the reporting of barristers’
comments in rape cases. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 32(1): 12–24.
Stanton A (1980) When Mothers Go to Jail. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on September 1, 2016

Jenkins 137

Travis J and Waul M (2003) The children and families of prisoners. In: Travis J and Waul M (eds)
Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Re-entry on the Children, Families
and Communities. Washington: The Urban Institute Press.
Van Nijnatten C (1998) Detention and Development: Perspectives of Children of Prisoners.
Mönchengladbach: Forum Verlag Godesberg.
Walklate S (1989) Victimology: The Victim and the Criminal Justice System. London: Unwin
Hyman.
Walklate S (1993) Appreciating the victim: Conventional, realist or critical victimology?.
In: Young J and Matthews R (eds) Issues in Realist Criminology London: Sage, pp. 102–118.
Walklate S (2004) Gender, Crime and Criminal Justice, 2nd edn. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Walklate S (2007) Imagining the Victim of Crime. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Wolhuter L, Olley N and Denham D (2009) Victimology: Victimisation and Victims’ Rights.
London: Routledge.
Wortman C (1983) Coping with victimisation: Conclusions and implications for future research.
Journal of Social Issues 39(2): 195–221.
Wortman CB, Battle ES and Lemkau JP (1997) Coming to terms with the sudden, traumatic death
of a spouse or child. In: Davies R, Lurigio A and Skogan W (eds) Victims of Crime. London:
Sage, pp. 108–133.
Zedner L (2002) Victims. In: Maguire M, Morgan R and Reiner R (eds) The Oxford Handbook of
Criminology, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on September 1, 2016