Family members of prisoners experience a form of incarceration themselves through strict rules, surveillance and emotional regulation imposed during visits, a study by La Trobe University has found.
For many, this process transforms their behaviours, emotions and perspectives, creating long-term lifestyle changes and impacts on their day-to-day lives.
The study published in Corrections: Policy, Practice and Research, found the control of visitors, intimidating security protocols and the hostile demeanour of some staff, can result in enduring changes to innocent people.
“I guess when you’re treated like the scum of the earth and no good by all the guards, you start to believe it,” one participant said.
Many participants expressed feeling stigma and shame during the security process, which often involves scans, pat-downs, sniffer dogs and in some cases, strip searches.
Once inside, visitors face rigid restrictions on movement and physical contact, with several reporting simple gestures like holding hands or hugging are prohibited. They are also expected to suppress emotions during visits, with crying or showing distress sometimes resulting in visits being cut short.
“The whole process is purposefully intimidating ... you know you haven’t done anything wrong ... but you feel like they’re just waiting to catch you,” one participant said.
The study was led by Dr Nicole Ryan, a criminologist in the La Trobe University Law School, in collaboration with Dr Nathan Ryan from the Australian Catholic University and Dr Michael Chataway from Queensland University of Technology.
The academics recruited 248 participants who completed an online survey about their visitation experiences and the associated impacts at Australian prisons. Of those, 21 agreed to participate in an in-depth interview.
Beyond the emotional impact, the study uncovered significant lifestyle changes and financial pressures.
Families often reorganise work schedules, take unpaid leave and hide their circumstances for fear of stigma. The cost of maintaining contact can be substantial, with travel, accommodation, food and commissary deposits often exceeding hundreds of dollars per visit.
“Could you imagine what would happen if someone found out? I’m a teacher. If it got out that I visit my partner in prison, I’d lose my job,” a participant said.
Over time, visitors said they adapted to prison routines, using prison slang in everyday life and changing the way they dressed when visiting. This included not wearing makeup and leaving jewellery at home, which one couple described as their own “prison outfit”. Others reported social withdrawal after the incarceration of their loved one, contributing to isolation and mental health challenges.
Dr Ryan said the study findings highlighted a profound imbalance of power between visitors and the justice system. She called for urgent reforms to reduce harm.
“Visitation is critical for family connection, child wellbeing and rehabilitation – yet current practices often stigmatise and penalise the free alongside the incarcerated,” Dr Ryan said.
“This study underscores the need for a more humane approach. Just as correctional departments have a responsibility to protect incarcerated people and correctional staff, this should extend to recognising the vulnerability of visitors.”
The study recommends training correctional staff on the impacts of secondary prisonisation, appointing visitor advocates to support families during visits and reducing communication costs to stem the impact of prisoner family visits.
Contact details: