Being remanded into custody in prison – in the face of criminal charges – represents a socially sanctioned profound act of alienation in which one is thrust into an essentially low trust environment. Yet, while still divorced from accustomed social networks, such as family, new cultures and social ties are constructed within these carceral spaces. Unsurprisingly, given the overlap in static and dynamic risk factors, and the essentially psychologically toxic nature of prisons as institutions, experiences of mental distress and disorder present to a significant degree and with a particular nature in these settings. Yet, despite their inherent darkness, prisons represent, for some, sites of potential healing, recovery, rehabilitation, and redemption. Therapeutic work in prison institutions is challenging with prisoner, group, and therapist being required to work together to establish a rapport built on a form of epistemic trust – fostering the idea that a shared reality construction is possible and potentially generative. Yet, at each stage the ethic of this process is undermined by institutional and wider processes focused on restriction and retribution. The questions arises whether therapeutic practice in such institutions is ethically possible, or whether any attempt at such work simply represents an exercise of state power in the further confinement and control not only of the prisoner’s body but also, through a process of “psychologization”, their mind. In this paper I seek to present, through a series of clinical vignettes, psychoanalytic, and actor-network theory, the role of fostering of trust and co-construction of narrative in acts of recovery that overcome these restrictions and suggest that, even in such settings, acts of compassion and kindness emerge in a radical manner that challenges notions of distrust, division, and disempowerment that are often seen as constitutive of prisons as institutions.

Effective criminal justice practice rests on the foundations of trust and in turn influences perceptions of legitimacy and procedural fairness across the criminal justice system. The system, according to Cavadino et.al (2019), is currently weak due to a threefold crisis: the crisis of penological resources, crisis of visibility and the crisis of legitimacy. As the tenth anniversary of the Lammy review (2017) approaches it would be fair to claim that the criminal justice system is now in a better position to ‘explain’ where disparities are present and actively shaping the dynamics of trust and mistrust in racially minoritised communities. Making data and processes more visible can improve trust and confidence (Bradford, 2024) but greater visibility and engagement has not substantially increased trust levels in justice institutions. This paper examines how the ‘reform’ element from the Lammy review has performed. Acknowledging trust as a continuous performance and negotiation between practitioners, individuals and communities this paper will examine the relational dynamics of trust and mistrust within criminal justice institutions, drawing on socio-legal scholarship, critical criminology and emerging research on building institutional legitimacy. It argues that the ‘reform’ element has been undermined by mistrust at three overlapping levels: absence of positive enablers in institutional cultures; interpersonal trust between practitioners and justice-involved individuals; and the nature of systemic trust. Using examples from criminal justice practice at the prosecution and sentencing stages the paper will show how trust gets undermined through procedural actions, perceptions of fairness and the exercise of discretion. The paper will conclude by emphasising how the ‘reform’ element in the Lammy review requires operationalising a relational model of trust over procedural models. This will help foreground key issues of power asymmetry that can be addressed through ethical leadership and communication to advance legitimacy and transform distrust to trust.

This paper explores the systematic destruction of human trust through the lens of the feature film The Pitesti Experiment (dir. Victoria Baltag). Based on the notorious re-education program in early Communist Romania (1949–1951), the film depicts the "most terrible barbarity of the contemporary world," where university students were subjected to a perverse psychological experiment designed to create the "New Man." Unlike traditional forms of incarceration, the Pitesti Phenomenon weaponized the victim-victimizer relationship, forcing prisoners to torture their own friends and family to prove their "re-education."

The analysis focuses on how the experiment deliberately targeted the fundamental pillars of human interdependence. By compelling detainees to renounce their faith, ideology, and—most crucially—their interpersonal loyalties, the regime didn't just extract information; it induced a total collapse of the self into a state of "narcissistic isolation" and paranoia. Through cinematic representation, the paper examines the "unnarratability" of this trauma and the film's role as a commemorative gesture that breaks the silence imposed by decades of state-sponsored disinformation. It interrogates the thin line between trust and survival, illustrating how the forced betrayal of one's social and spiritual fabric leads to a corrosive form of mistrust that lingers across generations.

How this presentation addresses the conference theme: The presentation addresses the theme by examining the "dialectics of trust and mistrust" in its most extreme, pathological form. It explores how the Pitesti Experiment functioned as a "dystopian imaginary" made real, where the unknown was not a space for imagination, but a source of constant, calculated terror. By discussing the film’s journey—from its independent, decade-long production to its role in uncovering "unstable truths"—this session reflects on how art can recalibrate historical trust in a post-truth era, fostering a collective "bearing of responsibility" for a past that was once violently erased.

This paper examines how trust is continuously negotiated within structurally unequal relationships in the context of death penalty mitigation in India. Mitigation interviews involve documenting life histories of individuals facing capital punishment, to argue for a sentence lesser than death. In this process, mitigation interviews frequently lead to deeply relational encounters in which clients (persons sentenced to death) recount intimate and often painful life histories to mitigation investigators.

Many individuals facing the death penalty come from communities that have historically experienced violence, marginalisation and neglect at the hands of social and state institutions. Additionally, mitigation interviews often take place within relationships marked by significant asymmetries of power between the client and mitigator—shaped by differences in caste, class, education and access to legal systems. In that sense, disclosure from clients in such encounters cannot be treated as a straightforward indicator of trust. Clients may choose to withhold or selectively disclose narratives, and only reveal certain aspects of themselves as trust develops in the relationship. Trust in mitigation interviews therefore emerges through an ongoing relational process in which both client and mitigator navigate the conditions under which disclosure becomes possible.

Drawing on reflections from conducting mitigation interviews, the paper examines how feminist methodological approaches—particularly the emphasis on reflexivity, relational knowledge production and attentiveness to power—offer a way to critically examine and navigate the power asymmetry embedded within this process. In doing so, it helps guide the relational practices through which mitigators continuously negotiate and build trust over time. These reflections point to mitigation not simply as a process of collecting life histories, but as a relational, feminist practice in which building and sustaining trust becomes central to conducting meaningful and responsible mitigation work.

This paper engages the theme of political trust, mistrust and distrust, feelings of powerlessness and the possibilities of agency.