Granice reformy więziennictwa

• Authors: Michał Porowski , Andrzej Rzepliński

Title variants

EN

The Limits of Prison Reform

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

EN

A reform consists in the intention to introduce changes into a given system of social institutions which would not be aimed at its radical and qualitative transformation but would resolve themselves into improvement or rationalization. The reformatory thought may be inspired by conservative, liberal or radical attitudes which determine the motives, limits and profoundness of the changes. In the present paper, a conception of a reform of the prison system has been presented which would assimilate its contents to the substance of punishment, i.e. retribution in its humanistic interpretation and the values that come to the foreground of the axiological system of our times. These values are included in the notion of the dignity of a human being which results from treating man as the aim in itself and a being endowed with free will. The authors have assumed in the present paper that when reforming the prison system, all of its elements can be manipulated with the following exceptions: deprivation of the isolated person of his right to decide about his place of abode, and his duty to stay in a place determined by the authority which executes the penalty. Therefore, the following things can be changed: the ideological grounds of the system, i.e. its aims, functions and the role it plays in the global system of interests; external organization of the system, i.e. its -management regulation of interactions between the isolated and the isolating communities, organization the staff; material equipment of the system, i.e. buildings and their architecture, the arrangements concerning security, economy nd production. The authors oppose the conception which has been called here the reason of humanized retribution to the two contemporary variants of the prison policy. Ideologists of the first of them (the variant oriented at a psycho-social corrective treatment) model prisons having in view the future law abiding functioning of the offender in the society. An individual is here but a ,.human material" which is to undergo transformation as a result of the application of adequate measures. Ideologists of the second variant (one oriented at education through work) emphasize the social needs not connected with the prisoner who is treated as a quantum of man power that can be used. Retribution is inherent in the prison policy irrespective of the intention of its promotors and executors. After all it is one of the elements of the execution of penalty. The moral value of retribution resulting from a just punishment was recognized in the philosophy and dogmatic assumptions of pastoral theology. Recognizing punishment to be the offender’s personal right, we at the same time recognize his dignity due to a rational person. Therefore, punishment based on retribution certifying to the subjectivity and dignity of an human being, is tantamount to the humane attitude. To render possible the realization of the reason of humanized retribution, definite conditions have to emerge. These are: consistently grounding the punishment on the responsibility for the commission of a given act: this excludes the use of the perpetrator’s way of life, state or personality, and opinions as the essential criteria for meeting out punishment, and leads to the imposition of prison sentences for the most serious crimes only; stopping both the building of new prisons an the artificial increase of the capacity of the existing ones; overcoming the barrier of functional connections between prisons and state enterprises which use the immates cheap and first of all easily disposable man power. The reform of the prison policy inspired by the reason of humanized retribution can be expressed in three fundamental postulates which are: (i) the principle of the rule of law and that of mutual respect for the legel status of the prison staff and of the inmates; (ii) the principle of respect for the prisoners dignity; (iii) and the principle of minimalization of isolation of the prison system and of increasing its integration with the outside social environment. The rule of law which is the content of the first principle is the order not only of an absolute observance of the law, but also of the consistence of its contents with the achievements of civilization and morals of the global , society. Thus, on the one hand, the importance of the law as an instrument to eliminate arbitrariness of decisions from the process of execution of penalty is emphasized here, and, on the other hand, the postulate acquires justification that the prisoners' rights - instead of resulting from discretional decisions - be the articulation of the socially accepted values and their realization in accordance with the spirit of times. Thus the prisoners rights become the content and at the same time the safeguard of an humane attitude towards him.  The recognition of the rule of law as the central principle of the prison policy is justified by the very reason of humanized retribution. According to this principle. the process of execution of the deprivation o [ liberty is treated as a sui generis legal relationship between the prison management and the prisoner. the safeguard o[ which is the principle of mutual respect for the both parties legal positions. The construction of a definite catalogue of these rights is the task of the legislation. In any case, the prisoner retains his rights to the extent appropriate of any citizen in barracks. The only thing the penal isolation eliminates is the personal participation in the outside social life. A specific prison right is the inmates' right to use the period of isolation in the way that would be most helpful for their evelopment, which means, among other things the opportunity to participate in treatment alternatives offerred to them, or the conditions for individual development. For the principle of mutual respect of legal statuses to be realized, the prisoner should be equipped with effective means of execution of his rights. This is dictated by two reasons. Firstly, the conception of the process of execution of the penalty of deprivation of liberty as a legal relationship between the prisoner and the management naturally brings the normative factor. to the fore; secondly, prison-as an extremely dense social environment-releases tensions increased by the particural susceptibility to aggression on the part of both of its communities. The prison policy is a negation of the principle of respect for the prisoner’s human dignity in the present interpretation, its contents being adjusted to the Spartan attitude towards men in which an human being has an instrumental Value only. Therefore, he may be modeled after a freely chosen pattern by means of open repression, behavioural conditioning and other kinds of manipulation. On the other hand, the opposite Socratean model of influencing the individual is consistent with the authors assumptions. According to this model, the principal means of the so-called prisoners resocialization are discussed in the paper (work, education, access to culture, as well as punishment and award), in the effort to define them in such a way as never to disturb the ideological contents of the Socratean attitude towards the development of the individual. Prisons are social institutions for which everybody is responsible, though to a varying degree. This gives significance to the principle of minimum of isolation and integration of the prison with the outside social milieu. In this connection, a detailed discussion has been included in the present paper of the forms of isolation (internal, external), the effects of its accomplishment (material and social), and the effects of alienation of penal institutions ( totalitarization, prisonization, exlusion of social control, strict control of contacts with the outside social milieu). To sum up, the approach presented in the present paper is aimed at overcoming the stereotype that consist in a critical analysis of the separate  elements of the prison system without a comprehensive appraisal of its theoretical and practical values. This stereotype does nothing but consolidate the system the value of which has never been verified, and results in the prison policy becoming more and more eclectic.

Keywords

PL

instytucje społeczne; reforma więzienia; polityka więzienna; stereotyp; granice; neoklasycyzm; social institutions; prison reform; Prison Policy; stereotype; borders; neoclassicism; instytucje społeczne; reforma więzienia; polityka więzienna; stereotyp; granice; neoklasycyzm; social institutions; prison reform; Prison Policy; stereotype; borders; neoclassicism

EN

social institutions; prison reform; Prison Policy; stereotype; borders; neoclassicism

• Publisher: Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN / Institute of Legal Studies PAN
• Journal: Archiwum Kryminologii
• Year: 1986
• Issue: XIII
• Pages: 141-172

Dates

published

1986-10-16

Contributors

author

Michał Porowski

author

Andrzej Rzepliński

References

• Ancel M., Chemithe P., Les systemes peniténtiaires en Europe Occidentale, La Documentation Française, Paris 1982.
• Assorodobraj N., Początki klasy robotniczej. Problem rąk roboczych w polskim przemyśle epoki stanisławowskiej, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa 1966.
• Bałandynowicz A., Porowski M., Rzepliński A., Zakład karny jako instytucja penitencjarna. Referat przedstawiony na II ogólnopolskiej Konferencji Profilaktyki Społecznej i Resocjalizacji, IPSiR UW, Warszawa 1980.
• Bartczak J., O przebytej drodze i perspektywach więziennictwa PRL, ,,Przegląd Więziennictwa” 1959, nr 2.
• Bass K.C., Judicial Politics and Correctional Reform. An analysis of the decline of the ,,Hands-Off” Doctrine, ,,Detroit College of Law Review” 1977, nr 4.
• Bojarski T., Hołda Z., Baranowski J. (red.), Praca skazanych odbywających Karę pozbawienia wolności, Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, Lublin 1985.
• Bowker L.H., The Warden. A Classic Case of the Double-Blind Dilemma, ,,International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology’’ 1979, t. 23, nr 2.
• Buchała K., Dyrektywy sądowego wymiaru kary, Warszawa 1969.
• Buczyńska-Garewicz H., Uczucia i rozum w świetle wartości, Wrocław 1979.
• Chałasiński J., Społeczeństwo i wychowanie, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa 1948.
• Chwastek A., Studia nad czytelnictwem więźniów, Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wrocław 1980.
• Correctional Institutions in Japan, Ministry of Justice, Tokyo 1982.
• Ettinger A., Zbrodniarz w świetle antropologii i psychologii, Warszawa 1929.
• Frączek A., Kolta M., Frustracja i stres psychologiczny [w:] T. Tomaszewski (red.), Psychologia, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa 1976.
• Friel C.M., Correctional Data Analysis Systems, Criminal Justice Center, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville 1980.
• Gennaro G. di, Vetere E., The Crisis of the Concept of Correctional Treatment, ,,International Journal of Criminology and Penology” 1974, t. 2.
• Goetting A., Conjugal Association in Prison - A World View, ,,Criminal Justice Abstracts” 1982, t. 14, nr 3.
• Górny J., Śliwowski J., Resocjalizacja a problem dolegliwości kary, ,,Państwo i Prawo” 1981, nr 3.
• Grzelak J., Empiryczne przesłanki skuteczności karaniu. Badania w przemyśle, Ossolineum, Wrocław 1974.
• Howkins G., The prison. Policy and practice, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1976.
• Huff C.R., Scott J.E., Dinitz S., Prisoners' Unions. A Cross-National Investigation of Public Acceptance, ,,International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice” 1976, t. 4, nr 4.
• Katz D., Motywacyjne podstawy zachowań w organizacji [w:] W.E. Scott Jr., L.L., Cummings (red.), Zachowanie człowieka w organizacji, t. I, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa 1983.
• King R.D., Morgan R., The Prison System. Prospect for Change, ,,The Howard Journal” 1992, t. XXI.
• Kotarbiński T., Medytacje o życiu godziwym, Wiedza Powszechna, Warszawa 1966.
• Kowalski J., Wartości humanistyczne i ich aktualny przekaz w etyce chrześcijańskiej [w:] S. Olejnik (red.), Teologia moralna w obliczu aktualnego stanu etosu polskiego, PTT w Krakowie. Sekcja Wydawnicza, Kraków 1977.
• Lernell L., Podstawowe zagadnienia penologii, Wydawnictwo Prawnicze, Warszawa 1977.
• Lernell L., Podstawy nauki polityki kryminalnej, Wydawnictwo Prawnicze, Warszawa 1967.
• Martinson R., What works?, Questions and Answers about prison Reform, ,,The Public Interest” 1914, nr 35.
• Mazurkiewicz E., O przekształcaniu człowieka pod względem moralnym [w:] J. Rudnicki, K. Murawski (red.), Na krawędzi epoki. Rozwój duchowy i działanie człowieka, Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, Warszawa 1985.
• Mika S., Skuteczność kar w wychowaniu, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa 1969.
• Mitford Dż., Tiuremnyj biznes, Juridiczeskaja Literatura, Moskwa 1978.
• Moczydłowski P., Rzepliński A., Protesty zbiorowe skazanych, 1982 (maszynopis).
• Moczydłowski P., Types of Penal Institution, Economic Organization, and Inmate Social Structure. Some Polish Examples, ,,International Journal of the Sociology of Law’’ 1983, nr 11.
• Murton T.O., Prison management. The past, the present and the possible future [w:] M.E. Wolfgang, Prisons. Present and possible, Lexington Books, Lexington 1979.
• Murzynowski A., Rezler J., Wymiar sprawiedliwości w Polsce w latach 1944 -1970. Ustawodawstwo, organizacja i działalność, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Warszawa 1972.
• Nowacki T., Wychowanie przez pracę, Nasza Księgarnia, Warszawa 1964.
• Ossowska M., Normy moralne. Próba systematyzacji, Państwowe Wydawnictwa Naukowe, Warszawa 1970.
• Pawela S., Kodeks karny wykonawczy, Komentarz, Wydawnictwo Prawnicze, Warszawa 1972.
• Pomponazzi P., Tractatus de immortalitate animae, Bazylea 1516.
• Porowski M., Karanie i resocjalizacja, ,,Studia Kryminologiczne, Kryminalistyczne i Penitencjarne” 1986, nr 16.
• „Prison Journal” 1982, nr 1.
• Radzinowicz L., Zagadnienie kar dyscyplinarnych w nowoczesnym ustroju więziennym, ,,Przegląd Więziennictwa Polskiego” 1933, nr 1.
• Rzepliński A., Prison staff in Poland in the light of legal regulations and actual practice, ,,International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology” 1983, t. 27, nr 2.
• Rzepliński A., Rodziny więźniów długoterminowych, Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wrocław 1981.
• Rzepliński A., Społeczny projekt zmian w kodeksie karnym wykonawczym, Obywatelskie Centrum Inicjatyw Społecznych, Warszawa 1981.
• Rzepliński A., The Probation Officer in the English Penitentiary System, [w:] J. Harper, Assist and Befriend or Direct and Control, London North East Polytechnic, London 1982.
• Schmidt J., Demystifying Parole, Lexington Books, Lexington 1977.
• Scull A.T., Decarceration. Community treatment and the deviant. A radical view, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs 1977.
• Shover A., A sociology of American Corrections, The Dorsey Press, Homewood 1979.
• Śliwowski J., Prawo i polityka penitencjarna, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa 1982.
• Śliwowski J., Tendencje abolicjonistyczne I skrajnie krytyczne w penitencjarystyce [w:] B. Hołyst (red.) Problemy współczesnej penitencjarystyki w Polsce, Wydawnictwo Prawnicze, Warszawa 1984.
• Starczewska K., Koncepcja człowieka a model wychowania, ,,Więź’’ 1978, nr 9.
• Starościak J., Studia z teorii prawa administracyjnego, Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Warszawa 1967.
• Stastny Ch., Tyrnauer G., Who rules the joint? The changing political culture of maximum-security prisons in America, Lexington Books, Lexington 1982.
• Świda H., Pojęcie wartości i jej znaczenie dla funkcjonowania osobowości [w:] H. Świda (red.), Młodzież a wartości, Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne, Warszawa 1979.
• Szelhaus S., Analiza przestępczości wielokrotnych recydywistów, ,,Archiwum Kryminologii” 1969, t. IV.
• Szymanowski T., Kryminologiczne i penitencjarne zagadnienia wykonywania kary pozbawienia wolności [w:] T. Szymanowski, J. Górski, Wykonywanie kary pozbawienia wolności w świetle wyników badań, Wydawnictwo Prawnicze, Warszawa 1982.
• Szymanowski T., Powrotność do przestępstwa po wykonaniu kary pozbawienia wolności, Wydawnictwo Prawnicze, Warszawa 1976.
• ,,The Abolitionist. The Magazine of Radical Alternatives to Prison” 1984, nr 4.
• Tobis A., Nowe tendencje w polityce penitencjarnej, ,,Nowe Prawo" 1979, nr 11.
• Tobis A., Prawo penitencjarne i polityka penitencjarna, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, Poznań 1979.
• Tobis A., Śliwowski J., O potrzebie nowych regulaminów Penitencjarnych, ,,Państwo i Prawo'' 1980, nr 2.
• Walczak S., Prawo penitencjarne. Zarys systemu, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa 1972.
• Wardlaw C.R., Changes in offending Against Prison Regulations as a Function of Policy Changes in Three: A Retrospective Analysis, ,,Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology” 1976, t. 9, nr 1.
• Werner A., Zwyczajna apokalipsa, Czytelnik, Warszawa 1981.
• Wierzbicki P., Indywidualizacja penitencjarna w Polsce, Wydawnictwo Prawnicze, Warszawa 1976.
• Wróblewski B., Świda W., Sędziowski wymiar kary w Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, Wilno 1939.
• Wytyczne CZZK z 19 października 1978 r. w sprawie wykonania kary pozbawienia wolności wobec skazanych, sprawców włamań.

Identifiers

DOI

10.7420/AK1986C