Theoretical Criminology· 2026Q1
Double liminality: Transitional imprisonment and the ambiguities of the open prison
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
Open prisons function as institutions of suspension, not bridges to freedom, by creating 'double liminality' through compounded ambiguity, according to qualitative research in English facilities.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Open prisons are reconceptualized as institutions of suspension rather than transition to freedom.
- The concept of 'double liminality' explains how transitional imprisonment governs through compounded ambiguity.
- Prisoners experience suspension between regression to closed conditions and conditional release.
- Three dimensions of suspended experience—institutional ambiguity, fractured identity, and temporal suspension—emerge as governance techniques.
- Open custody demands autonomy while denying it, operating within neoliberal conditionality and responsibilisation logics.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
This analysis reconceptualises open prisons as institutions of suspension rather than bridges to freedom. Extending penal liminality theory, it advances the concept of double liminality to explain how ‘transitional imprisonment’—custody whose boundary remains permeable in both directions—governs through compounded ambiguity. Drawing on qualitative research in English open prisons, the study theorises how prisoners are suspended between two thresholds: regression to closed prison conditions and conditional release. Over-institutionalised in sanction yet under-institutionalised in support, open prisons generate three dimensions of suspended experience, namely, institutional ambiguity, fractured identity, and temporal suspension, operating as a governance technique. By framing open custody within the logics of neoliberal conditionality and responsibilisation, the study offers a framework for analysing institutional doubleness, where the demand for autonomy coincides with its denial. It contributes to emerging debates on penal transformation, temporal power, and carceral governance through withdrawal.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Theoretical Criminology, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Law
LawSocial Sciences