Prisons in the 21st century: Walls of glass or concrete
Presented by Avraham Hoffmann at the ICPA 8th annual conference, October 2006, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Prison-transparency hot topic: past and present?
In the past, prison often used to be out of public interest. There was acquiescence that the public is not interested to know what is happening inside prisons, and it did not bother the prison establishment. The prison was outside the public realm and the prison wardens were happy with it.
Many prison directors and Commissioners in Prison Services around the world face a major problem in dealing with the democratic fundamental requirement for transparency concerning the things done inside the prison walls.
In the past, prisons were out of bounds and of no political or media interest. Today, we shouldn’t ignore the objective difficulties that the rigorous security necessities have on the transparency approach. Although prison walls are made of concrete, they appear to become more and more transparent. It becomes, less and less possible to hide what’s going on behind the prison walls.
Do we need transparency in prisons?
And, can we run a security system according to the transparency requirements. How can we reconcile the prison authoritative system with the democratic regime? Whether we want it or not, prisons have no alternative but to adjust to the new trends. However, I think the prison system can gain many values and benefits by being transparent:
- Promoting prisoner rehabilitation that will result in public safety.
- Ensuring adequate budgets: In a democratic society, the growing need for funds requires a contact with the political system, which requires opening the prison gates to the media, political and rehabilitation systems.
Should we respond negatively to this process?
Should we respond to this process post factum? or, should we perceive the “transparency process” as a positive one for which we must prepare the prison truly and willingly, and thus transform symbolically the prison walls into glass walls?
To answer that let me first examine –
What caused the rise of the prisons – transparency dilemma.
The interrelated factors that caused the rise of this question are:
- Democracy and public opinion demand to know. They accentuate the dilemma between safety and security vis-à-vis transparency and accountability. The contrast between an authoritative punishment security system inside the prison walls and the demand for accountability, transparency and human rights.
- The growing power of the Media, through the new technologies, has changed our world into a global village. We now know what is happening in a small village thousands of miles away. We know more and request to know more. As a result prisoners too, have internalized skillfully the power of the media, the public opinion and the political system to advance their interests.
- The 21st Century has seen nine-eleven (9/11 – September 11, 2001) international terrorism rise to gravity never seen before. And while I wish to talk about criminal offences, I believe these events have had impact on all prison types.
Apparently, the nine-eleven events should have caused withdrawal, but it can also open our eyes to a differentiating approach: knowingly making a clear distinction according to the principle of nominative relation between the security risk and the transparency of the prison.
How should we build a security system that will fulfil the punishment and public safety needs, but, that at the same time, will be positively motivated and knowingly open to transparency?
No doubts this requires a psychological and cognitive changeover of our approach. We won’t react because of the public pressure to display transparency. We will do so, because we know it’s the right thing to do.
If it is the right thing to do, we must build a system that will ensure that transparency isn’t an unbearable burden, but an essence, content and a goal. This will eventually help us to gain more security. “Stolen water is sweet” (Proverbs 9:17), hence openness prevents “mysticism” and ambiguity that journalists, politicians and prisoners know how to take advantage of, often for the worth.
Transparency and Rehabilitation.
It is impossible to develop a serious rehabilitation program with no contacts with the community. The locked gates during the prisoners’ punishment period shouldn’t be a barrier that prevents him from seeing the community’s “light”. By unveiling it we allow it to positively impact the prisoner’s development toward a new future. A rehabilitated released prisoner helps strengthen the society’s security – An alienated prisoner, becomes a threat upon his release from prison.
The prison system is an authoritative punishment system, designed to punish offenders and protect the public from those who want to harm it. Imprisonment is only a temporary period, short or long, after which the offenders return to live in society. To ensure the prisoner returns back to society as a positive and contributing citizens we must both offer him the opportunity to rehabilitate and reduce the offenders’ stigma in society.
However, public opinion is divided:
Some criticise prison leaves, for showing a too liberal approach toward prisoners. Others requests a more liberal and rehabilitation oriented approach. However, sometimes failures occur: a prisoner escapes prison, or commits a murder or rape during a prison leave, a prisoners’ riot, or prison staff that abuses prisoners. When these occur, both tendencies, the conservative and the liberal, criticise the prison authorities.
Transparency, Rehabilitation and Community
In such crisis, the benefits of the investment in contacts with the community are apparent. The community must be aware of the constraints of prisons and present in times of crisis. This mission is possible only by openness and transparency.
As sinners wish that God’s gates keep open for their prayers although they don’t know if their prayer will be accepted, the same is the prisoner. We allow it by creating community transparent bidirectional gates who say: “… you have sinned, committed crimes and were punished, but the community’s gates are open for your new perception of your own life, and for the new perception of the community’s members toward you. You should try although you aren’t sure you can succeed.”
A close contact between the prisoners and the community rehabilitation services is needed to increase the released prisoner’s chances to a successful rehabilitation. The contact between the prisoner and his family during his incarceration are is an important condition for his rehabilitation after his release.
To promote this process prison Commissioners and senior staff must receive special training in order to be able to educate the different public opinions to openness. They should learn the different public aspects concerning the different prisoners’ populations and the offences they committed: Property offences, drugs, bodily assault, homicide, sexual offences and fraud.
But, not only the prison services and commissioner should adapt. In this new approach, the prisons’ warden should too:
The prison Warden’s Image as a Social Entrepreneur
In a regular prison, even in a relatively open one, the prison warden (Governor) reacts to external pressures. We could describe this type of attitude as “passive”. In the era of “transparency” the warden should initiate meetings and contacts with the general public, but especially the communities near-by his prison: the mayor, schools, public figures, business men etc. This, opens real opportunities for the rehabilitation counsellors. It helps create and promote a public opinion favourable to prisoners’ rehabilitation.
As a result more prisoners can find employment after their release from prison; hence they have less motivation to commit crimes. More social welfare foundations are willing to help released prisoners rehabilitate and integrate society. More politicians favour rehabilitation, as well as the media. And, more funds will be given for these purposes by the authorities.
What are the new prison warden’s training subjects?
- Acquaintance with the community and its institutions.
- Knowledge of the community’s political structure.
- Knowledge of the media and the ways of dealing with it.
- Knowledge of the community rehabilitation.
In high security prisons and in large prisons, the prison warden must have an officer in charge of public and media relations.
The benefits of the prison’s effect on prisoners.
A concrete prison looks hostile from the outside. It builds the prisoners hostility towards the outside and the society’s toward the prisoners.
When a released prisoner re-offends, a “friendly” community, who has open communication channels with the prison, can quickly and efficiently organise to inform the public, and the prisoners about the harm done. By letting the prisoners participate in this process they also internalise what is right and what is wrong. The differentiation between different kinds of prisoners will prevent the public from perceiving all prisoners as one.
Being both in the interest of the prison, the prisoners and society, it has a chance of succeeding. Private prisons need to be even more open to public eyes. The public suspects that the government is fleeing its state duties and is disregarding what is happening in these prisons, and that the prison owners are only interested in profits at the expense of the prisoners’ welfare and needs. Therefore, wardens of private prisons must learn to report and be controlled. Hence, the warden of a glass walls prison will attain public trust.
Conclusion
King David described in The Psalms (23:17) the succession of punishment and rehabilitation: “Your rod and Your staff -they comfort me”. King Solomon, his son, developed this perception. In First Kings (chapter 6:4) he said: “And for the house he made windows broad within, and narrow without”.
If King Solomon thought it right to create transparency in the Holy Temple, surely we are committed in the 21st century to replace the concrete walls with glass walls – even if it’s only in the abstract sense of the concept: