Convicts: Perceptions and Feelings about their paternal condition

Authors

  • Mônica Ferreira da Silva PUC
  • Raquel S L Guzzo PUC

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.19847

Keywords:

Prison, Convicted Fathers, Bonds, Development

Abstract

The present study aimed to understand the relationship between convicted fathers and their children inside the prison environment. The theoretical framework of the research is based on three discussion points: the first one deals with the current social and political combination of events and the contradictions that are generated by the current economic conditions, which contribute to massive imprisonment, and the prisons' role in the current society; the second point presents some theoretical considerations about human development under an ecological perspective; finally, the third point concerns the convict's family members in the prison environment. The study was conducted in a Penitentiary in the state of São Paulo and had the participation of seven fathers who were randomly chosen, taking into account only their parenthood condition. The semi-structured interview was one of the data collection instruments, together with the researcher's field diary. In the process of analysis of the collected data, the information is organized in two parts: the first one discussed the results obtained from the interviews with the convicted fathers, and the second one dealt with the data collected during the participant observations and through the field diaries. The results showed, in a general way, that the prison generates impacts on the relationship between fathers and their children, as well as on the family relationship. They also show that such an institution is not ready to deal with this question, and that very little is known about this reality.

References

Wacquant L. As Prisões da Miséria. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Editor; 2001.

Foucault M. Sobre as prisões. In: Foucault M. Microfísica do poder (129-44). Rio de Janeiro: Edições Graal; 1988.

Goffman E. Manicômios, prisões e conventos. São Paulo: Editora Perspectiva; 1996.

Salla F. A retomada do encarceramento: as masmorras high tech e a atualidade do pensamento de Michel Foucault. Cadernos da FFC 2001; 9(1):35-58.

Departamento Penitenciário Nacional. Disponível on line: www.mj.gov.br/depen.Recuperado em 09/12/2006.

Lacerda Jr F, Guzzo RSL. Prevenção primária: análise de um movimento e possibilidades para o Brasil. Interação em Psicologia 2005;9(12):239-49.

Bronfenbrenner U. A ecologia do desenvolvimento humano: experimentos naturais e planejados. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas; 1996.

Narvaz M G, Koller SH. O modelo bioecológico do desenvolvimento humano. In: Koller SH, organizadora. Ecologia do desenvolvimento humano: pesquisa e intervenção no Brasil (pp.51-65). São Paulo: Casa do Psicólogo; 2004.

Burity JA, Vainsencher SA. Escuridão no fim do túnel: o cotidiano das famílias de presos no estado de Pernambuco. Recife: Massangana; 2005.

Manual de Rotinas e Procedimentos do Agente de Segurança Penitenciária. São Paulo: Secretaria da Administração Penitenciária; 2005.

Flick U. Uma introdução à pesquisa qualitativa. Porto Alegre: Bookman; 2004.

Martinez M. La investigación cualitativa etnográfica em educación. Manual Teórico-Práctico. México: Trillas; 2002.

Elias JR. Comentários ao Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente: Lei n°8.069, de 13 de julho de 1990. São Paulo: Saraiva; 1994.

Conselho Federal de Psicologia. Código de Ética. Disponível online: www.pol.org.br.Recuperado em 08/09/2006.

Thompson A. A questão penitenciária. 2ª. Ed Rio de Janeiro: Forense; 1980.

De Antoni C, Cassol L. Família e abrigo como rede de apoio social e afetiva. In: Dell’Áglio DD, Koller SH, Yunes MAM, organizadores. Resiliência e psicologia positiva: interfaces do risco à proteção (p.173 -99). São Paulo: Casa do Psicólogo; 2006.

Gueiros DA. Família e proteção social: questões atuais e limites da solidariedade familiar. Serviço social e sociedade (p.102-20). São Paulo: Cortez Editora; 2002.

Carvalho MCB. Família brasileira. In: ManougS, organizador. A priorização da família na agenda da política social (p. 93-108). 2 ed. São Paulo: Cortez; 1994.

De Antoni C, Barone LR, Koller S. Violência e pobreza: um estudo sobre vulnerabilidade e resiliência familiar. In: Dell’Áglio DD, KollerSH, Yunes MAM, organizadores. Resiliência e psicologia positiva: interfaces do risco à proteção (p.141-71). São Paulo: Casa do Psicólogo; 2006.

Freitas MFQ. Inserção na comunidade eanálise de necessidades: Reflexões sobre a prática do Psicólogo. Psicologia Reflexão e Crítica 1998;11(1). Disponível em: mwww.scielo.com Recuperado em 29/10/2006.

Downloads

Published

2007-12-01

Issue

Vol. 17 No. 3 (2007)

Section

Original Research

License

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL  PUBLISHERS

 

Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:

 

Publishers should:

 

  • Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
  • Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
  • Protect intellectual property and copyright
  • Foster editorial independence

 

Publishers should work with journal editors to:

 

  • Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:

–         Editorial  independence

–         Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research

–         Authorship

–         Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards

–         Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor

–         Appeals and complaints

  • Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
  • Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
  • Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
  • Maintain the integrity of the academic record
  • Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
  • Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
  • Publish content on a timely basis