BLOKLAND

Imprisonment aims to reduce crimes in three ways (Blumstein et al. 1978): general
deterrence, specific deterrence and incapaciation. This study deals with this last,
incapacitative
effect of imprisonment. In particular it focuses on the effects of selective
incapacitation,
that is, imprisonment policies specifically targeting some predefined group of
offenders.
detentia urmareste sa reduca criminalitatea in trei feluri: descurajare generala, descurajare
specifica si incapacitare. Acest studiu se ocupa de acest ultim aspect al detentiei,
incapacitarea. Spcecific, se concentreaza asupra efectelor incapacitarii selective, adica asupra
politicilor de detentie a unor grupuri predefinite de infractori.

PAGES FROM PUNISHMENT

In Principles of European Prison Law and Policy: Penology and Human Rights, the
authors describe release decisions as of existential importance to prisoners.
They argue that there now exists, at the European level, a carefully developed
set of penological principles supported by the European Court of Human Rights,
the Council of Europe and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture.
These principles include using imprisonment
as a last resort and the recognition of all rights not explicitly removed by the fact
of imprisonment.
In Principii ale politicilor si legilor europene pentru inchisori: penologie si
drepturile omului, autorii descriu decizia de eliberare ca avand o importanta
existentiala pentru prizonieri. (Van zyl Smit and Snacken, 2009: 316) Ei sustin ca
acum exista, la nivel european un set atent dezvoltat de principii penologice
sustinut de Curtea Europeana a Drepturilor Omului, Consiliul Europei si Comitetul
european pentru preventia torturii. Aceste principii includ folosirea detentiei ca
ultima solutie si recunoasterea tuturor drepturilor care nu sunt in mod explicit
eliminate de actul detentiei.
3 Imprisonment is imposed as and not for punishment, and no other pains
should be deliberately imposed (Van zyl Smit and Snacken, 2009: 352). Growing
co-operation on these principles, and their application in practice, suggests
something of a lobby like the movement abolishing the death penalty. This body
of law and policy represents a fundamental commitment in Europe towards
recognising that prisoners should not be degraded but treated with dignity and
mercy (2009: 383). Europeans define themselves through this kind of
commitment to human rights principles (2009: 384).

Detentia este impusa ca atare si nu ca pedeapsa, si nu ar trebui provocate alte

suferinte. (Van zyl Smit and Snacken, 2009: 352) Creterea conlucrarii acestor
principii si punerea lor in practica, sugereaza prezenta unui lobby, cum ar fi cel
pentru abolirea pedepsei cu moartea. Acest corp de legi si politici reprezinta
angajarea fundamentala a Europei spre recunoasterea faptului ca prizonierii nu
ar trebui degradati, ci tratati cu demnitate si compasiune.
There are limitations to this body of law. Various of the principles could be
interpreted more radically, and the European Court of Human Rights could adopt
a more proactive approach, especially to the principle that imprisonment is only
used as a last resort. There are legitimate critiques of human rights models
aspirations (e.g. Dembour, 2006). One difficulty is the lack of any deep
understanding of or agreement about what the most important terminology
means in practice. What constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment, as
experienced by the prisoner? What is prison pain? Or cruelty? What is the
modern prison experience like for prisoners? Do those who
hold prisons legally accountable confuse material for psychological experience?
How do we account for the growing gap between apparently evolving standards
of decency at the European level (Van zyl Smit and Snacken, 2009, p. 369), and
the harshening direction of punishment practices within individual jurisdictions?
Sunt limitari ale acestui corp de legi. Variate principii ar putea fi interpretate mai
radical si Curtea europeana a drepturilor omului ar putea adopta o abordare mai
proactiva, in special a principiului ca detentia sa fie considerata ca ultima colutie.
Sunt critici legitime ale aspiratiilor modelului drepturilor omului (e.g. Dembour,
2006) o dificultate este reprezentata de lipsa oricarei intelegeri profunde sau a
acordului referitor la ceea ce inseamna in practica terminologia cea mai
importanta folosita. Ce constituie tratament inuman sau degradant, asa cum
este el perceput de catre detinut? Ce inseamna durerea detentiei? Sau cruzimea?
Cum este experienta inchisorii moderne pentru detinuti? Cum interpretam
cresterea diferentelor dintre aparenta evolutie a standardelor de decenta de la
nivel european si inasprirea practicilor pedepselor la nivelul autoritatilor
individuale?
I explore some of these themes below, drawing briefly on studies which identify
aspects of prison life that matter most. Empirical research on the moral quality
of life in prison suggests, among other things, that some prisons are more
survivable than others. Can these identifiable differences between prisons in one
jurisdiction provide the beginnings of a framework for addressing the broader
question of standards being set by the European Court of Human Rights?
Prisoners describe stark differences in the moral and emotional climates of
prisons serving apparently similar functions. The differences that matter are in
the domain of interpersonal relationships and treatment, and the use of
authority, which lead to stark differences in perceived fairness and safety, and
different outcomes. For example, very 532 Punishment & Society 13(5) high but
variable levels of distress, shown to be highly correlated with institutional suicide

rates, can be explained by significant differences in levels of respect, fairness

and humanity shown to prisoners by staff.
Mai jos explorez aceste teme, folosind succint studii care identifica aspecte ale
vietii din inchisoare care conteaza cel mai mult. Cercetarile empirice despre
calitatea vietii morale din inchisori sugereaza, printre altele, ca in unele inchisori
este mai usor de supravietuit decat in altele. Pot aceste diferente identificabile
dintre inchisorile unei unitati administrative sa ofere inceputurile realizarii unui
cadru pentru discutarea chestiunilor mai complexe privind standardele impuse
de Curtea europeana a drepturilor omului? Prizonierii descriu diferente marcante
in climatele morale si emotionale ale inchisorilor care se pare ca aparent au
functii similare. Diferentele cu un mare impact sunt cele din domeniul relatiilor
interpersonale, ale tratamentului si a folosirii autoritatii care conduce la diferente
masive in ceea ce priveste echitatea si siguranta percepute si diferite rezultate.
De exemplu, mari, dar variabile niveluri de suferinta sunt dovedite ca se
coreleaza cu rate mari de suicid si pot fi explicate prin mari diferente in
respectul, obiectivitatea si umanitatea aratate de catre personalul inchisorilor
prizonierilor.
It is clear that concepts like dignity and humanity are difficult to
operationalize. Prisoners are articulate about them, however, and know the
difference between feeling humiliated and retaining an identity. Can the two
worlds of moral measurement and apparently abstract human
rights standards in penology be brought together in a way that deepens the
conversation about, and reform efforts around, prison life and experience? There
is another dimension to treatment requiring elaboration, illustrated in the case
above. Prisoners are struggling to find meaning or hope at the earliest stages of
long and indeterminate sentences served in highly restrictive conditions of
maximum security. The very structure of the environment is un-survivable.
Este clar ca anumite concepte ca demnitatea si umanitatea sunt dificil de
operationalizat. Prizonierii sunt clari in ceea ce ii priveste si stiu diferenta dintre a
se simti umiliti si a-si pastra identitate. Pot aceste doua lumi ale dimensionarii
morale si aparent abstractul standard al drepturilor omului in penologie sa fie
puse laolalta intr-un fel care sa avaseze discutiile si eforturile de reformare din
jurul vietii si experientelor din inchisoare? Exista o alta dimensiune a
tratamentului care necesita elaborare, ilustrata in cazul de mai jos. Detinutii se
lupta sa gaseasca sensuri si speranta in stadiile premature ale sentintelor lungi si
nedetrminate ca perioada petrecute in conditii foarte restrictive, de maxima
siguranta. Structura insasi a mediului este de nesupravietuit
This is a new and distinctive development. These findings also have implications
for our understanding of the meaning of terms like inhuman and degrading
treatment, torture and prison pain. The argument proceeds as follows: the first
section describes how I came to think in terms of the concept of moral
performance; the second illustrates how this precipitated a return to a
longstanding interest in suicides in prison, armed with a clearer methodology on

the prison environment. This led to the finding that prison environments literally
varied in their survivability and that the relevant variables could be identified, all
of which related to the manner of ones treatment in prison.
Aceasta este o evolutie noua si distincta. Aceste rezultate au de asemenea
implicatii in intelegerea intelesului termenilor de tratament inuman si degradant,
tortura si durerea inchisorii. Discutia se desfasoara dupa cum urmeaza: prima
sectiune descrie cum am ajuns sa gandesc in termenii conceptului de
performanta morala, a doua ilustreaza cum aceasta a grabit intoarcerea la un
interes de lunga durata despre sinuciderea in inchisori, inarmat cu o metodologie
clara despre mediul inchisorilor. Aceasta a condus la descoperirea faptului ca
mediile din inchisori sunt variate in ceea ce priveste supravietuirea si ca variabile
relevante pot fi identificate, toate dintre ele legate de maniera de tratament a
individului in inchisoare.
The third part, drawing on recently completed fieldwork, outlines briefly what
prisoners have to say about the new struggle for psychological survival in
conditions of maximum security (Liebling et al., 2011a). This research has
troubled me more than any other study to date because of the pain and distress
experienced and the contrast with the same prison 12 years earlier. I then reflect
on the relevance of measuring the prisons moral performance, and the nature of
the sentence being served, for ongoing deliberations about standards of
treatment in prison.
A treia parte, inspirata de recentele incheiate studii de teren, subliniaza succint
ceea ce prizonierii au de spus despre noua lupta de supravietuire psihologica in
conditiile de maxima siguranta. (Liebling et al., 2011a) aceasta cercetare m-a
tulburat decat orice alt studiu de pana acum din cauza durerii si nivelului de
suferinta traite si contrastul cu aceeasi inchisoare, dar cu 12 ani mai devreme.
Dupa aceea am refelctat asupra relevantei masurarii performantei morale a
inchisorii si a naturii sentintelor executate, pentru deliberari ulterioare despre
standardele de tratament in inchisori.
Fairness, relationships and survival in prison A growing body of empirical and
theoretical work in penology has established that concepts of fairness and
legitimacy are critical to life in prison, with demonstrable effects on order (Sparks
and Bottoms, 2008; Sparks et al., 1996) and well-being (Liebling, 2004; Liebling
et al., 2005a).Staffprisoner relationships or the way prison staff use their
authority contribute disproportionately to prisoner evaluations of the fairness of
their treatment. These findings are similar to those now widely discussed in the
policing and procedural justice literature (Tyler, 1990; Tyler and Blader, 2000)
although the emphasis in this literature (as well as in the penological iterature, to
begin with) is on compliance rather than on well-being. Ahmad (1996), for
example, argues that fairness in prison has three main components: the fairness
of staff; the fairness of the regime; and the fairness of procedures (for example,
disciplinary and grievance procedures). In a secondary analysis of Ahmads data
from three prisons, Bottoms and Rose found that perceived staff Prisons
constitute a special case of the use of power.

obiectivitatea, relatiile si supravietuirea in inchisoare.

Un numar in crestere de lucrari teoretice si empirice a stabilit despre conceptele
de obiectivitate si legitimitate ca sunt aspecte critice ale vietii din inchisori, cu
efecte demonstabile asupra ordinii (Sparks and Bottoms, 2008; Sparks et al.,
1996) si ale bunastarii. (Liebling, 2004; Liebling et al., 2005a) Relatiile din
detinuti si personal, sau felul in care personalul se foloseste de autoritate
contribuie invers proportional la evaluarile obiectivitatii propriului tratament de
catre prizonieri. Aceste descoperiri sunt similare celor dezbatute pe larg in
literatura despre politie si justitie procedurala (Tyler, 1990; Tyler and Blader,
2000), desi accentul acestei literaturi, ca si cel al iliteraturii penologice, este mai
degraba pus pe conformare si nu pe bunastare. Ahmad,1996, de exemplu sustine
ca echitatea in inchisori are trei mari componente: echitatea personalului,
echitatea regimului si echitatea procedurala- procedurile disciplinare si de apel
(plangere). In o analiza secundara a datelor lui Ahmad obtinute in trei inchisori,
Bottoms and Rose au descoperit ca perceptia personalului din inchisori constituie
un caz special de folosire a puterii.
What it is to feel treated inhumanely is difficult to conceptualize, and to compare
internationally, but there are strong signs that the task is not out of reach,
particularly if grounded approaches are used in the development of empirical
measures. One of the problems with prisons is that the dignity of man is based
on his (sic) freedom (Frankl, 2000: 80) and that this is by definition taken away
in the act of imprisonment. This is painful and damaging in itself. But there are
degrees and varieties of freedom, different types of deprivations of liberty and
different experiences of their loss. What prisoners experience may be a long way
away from what is assumed in many legal challenges. The pains of imprisonment
may vary by institution, jurisdiction and culture, and historical period, but some
essential features of imprisonment and generalized responses to those features
also exist. Carefully collected empirical detail on these matters, within an
evolving moral and conceptual framework,and extensive dialogue between
prisoners and staff, social researchers, official and oversight bodies, and activist
and campaigning organizations, is essential.
Cum este sa fii tratat inuman este dificil de conceptualizat si de comparat la
nivel international, dar sunt semne puternice ca aceasta sarcina nu este de
neatins, in special daca abordari cu baze sanatoase sunt folosite in dezvoltarea
masuratorilor empirice. Una dintre problemele cu inchisorile este ca demnitatea
umana este bazata pe propria libertate (Frankl, 2000: 80) si ca aceasta este luata
prin definitie la momentul detentiei. Aceasta este in sine un act dureros si
daunator. Dar exista grade diferite si varietati ale libertatii, diferite tipuri de
deprivari de libertati si diferite experiente ale pierderii lor. Ceea ce prizonierii
percep poate fi foarte diferit de ceea ce este presupus in multe motivari juridice.
Durerile detentiei pot varia in functie de institutie, jurisdictie si cultura, dar si de
perioada istorica, dar anumite caracteristici esentiale ale detentiei si raspunsul
generalizat la acestea de asemena exista. Detaliile empirice atent colectate ale
acestor aspecte, intr-un cadru moral si conceptual in continua evolutie, si

dialogul dintre detinuti si personal, cercetatori sociale, oficiali si organisme de

supraveghere, organizatii activiste si militante, sunt esentiale.

https://d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Publica
tions/The_Principles_and_Limits_of_the_Penal_System.pdf