1.005
Bearbeitungen
Benutzer:Woozle/Against Penitentiaries: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
Benutzer:Woozle/Against Penitentiaries (Quelltext anzeigen)
Version vom 26. August 2016, 11:06 Uhr
, 11:06, 26. Aug. 2016→Beware of fraudulent labelling
Woozle (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
Woozle (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
||
| Zeile 248: | Zeile 248: | ||
To say that even after prison abolition there will continue to be some form or forms of involuntary confinement is not equal to saying that any of the remaining deprivations of liberty would be allowed to take place in prison-like facilities. With no punishment intended, the living conditions of those affected by spatial separation from the rest of society must not be modeled after the penitentiary. With regard to size and comfort, they should rather resemble a decent middle-class home or at least apartment. Whoever thinks that is exaggerated should halt a minute and consider this: these people are being forced to sacrifice essential parts of their (quality of) life for the life and liberty of others - without necessarily being bad, evil, guilty, or even responsible for the risk they pose. With no reproach involved and no vengeance, those who deprive these individuals of their liberty have good reasons to do everything they can to try and compensate their sufferings the best they can. This can be done by, e.g., an artificially elevated level of comfort in their living conditions. Since they cannot be set free, they should at least live their restricted lives as good as possible, with their living conditions tailored to their needs and individual priorities, as long as that does not endanger the purpose of their confinement. | To say that even after prison abolition there will continue to be some form or forms of involuntary confinement is not equal to saying that any of the remaining deprivations of liberty would be allowed to take place in prison-like facilities. With no punishment intended, the living conditions of those affected by spatial separation from the rest of society must not be modeled after the penitentiary. With regard to size and comfort, they should rather resemble a decent middle-class home or at least apartment. Whoever thinks that is exaggerated should halt a minute and consider this: these people are being forced to sacrifice essential parts of their (quality of) life for the life and liberty of others - without necessarily being bad, evil, guilty, or even responsible for the risk they pose. With no reproach involved and no vengeance, those who deprive these individuals of their liberty have good reasons to do everything they can to try and compensate their sufferings the best they can. This can be done by, e.g., an artificially elevated level of comfort in their living conditions. Since they cannot be set free, they should at least live their restricted lives as good as possible, with their living conditions tailored to their needs and individual priorities, as long as that does not endanger the purpose of their confinement. | ||
=== | === Fraudulent labelling ==== | ||
Thirdly, what the abolition of prisons does not mean is to keep all those prisoners in prison and only change the name of the institution and its inmates to “hospital/patients”, “treatment center/clients”, or “prevention house/residents”. Fraudulent labelling is a real danger, because it is both seductive (as a kind of subversive resistance open to all those who are part of the system and who are either unable or unwilling to accept a radical de-institutionalization) and sometimes hard to distinguish from a valid label (e.g., a correct risk assessment). It is also a real danger, because today’s prisons are fulfilling a hybrid function of both inflicting pain on inmates because of their past crimes (= deprivation of liberty as a punishment) and preventing them from committing more crimes in the future (= deprivation of liberty as a preventive measure). | Thirdly, what the abolition of prisons does not mean is to keep all those prisoners in prison and only change the name of the institution and its inmates to “hospital/patients”, “treatment center/clients”, or “prevention house/residents”. Fraudulent labelling is a real danger, because it is both seductive (as a kind of subversive resistance open to all those who are part of the system and who are either unable or unwilling to accept a radical de-institutionalization) and sometimes hard to distinguish from a valid label (e.g., a correct risk assessment). It is also a real danger, because today’s prisons are fulfilling a hybrid function of both inflicting pain on inmates because of their past crimes (= deprivation of liberty as a punishment) and preventing them from committing more crimes in the future (= deprivation of liberty as a preventive measure). | ||
Germany is an interesting case in point. Some convicts, after completing their sentence, were held in prison for indeterminate periods, under the label of "security detention" (Sicherungsverwahrung). This was regarded as a security measure, not as a punishment. Therefore, normal criminal law priciples (like the prohibition of retroactivity) were not seen as applicable, until the European Court for Human Rights that finally intervened [CASE OF M. v. GERMANY_ 19.12.2008 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"dmdocnumber":["860012"],"itemid":["001-96389"]}]. | |||
== What is to be done? == | == What is to be done? == | ||