PL EN


2012 | XXXIV | 91-133
Article title

Systemowa pozorność resocjalizacji penitencjarnej w świetle badań empirycnych. Propozycje zmian

Authors
Content
Title variants
EN
Systemic ostensibility of the penitentiary resocialisation in the light of empirical studies. Proposals of changes
Languages of publication
PL
Abstracts
EN
The article discusses studies on models of incarceration in Polish prisons. The object of the study was to determine if resocialisation model of this punishment dominates in practice, or other models, including official-formal of ostensible resocialisation, dominate and what are the factors determining this. Analysis of this problem was based on opinions by prison personnel and convicts from three prisons in the district of Greater Poland Voivodeship. Disscussion is opened by a critical reflection how much the resocialisation model suits modern penitentiary policy and to what degree it is reflected in current executory provisions of law. Discussion stars with a polemics with an opinion, quite common in Polish penitentiary literature, that incarceration should be based on this particular model as it is better than other ones. Resocialisation model does not take into account diversified needs of influence on prisoners. Some of them do not need improvement (e.g. unintentional, accidental perpetrators). Others, because of their already shaped negative personality traits will never be fit to come back to the society (e.g. perpetrators of most grave crimes of the highest degree of demorali-zation). In the end of theoretical discussion of various model of work with convicts during incarceration, the author draws one’s attention to the fact that provisions of executory criminal law can reflect resocialisation conceptions only to a limited degree. Practical model of penitentiary influence is hence not a uniform and clear pedagogical model but has an eclectic character. It is demonstrated that from such point of view, assessment of work of prisons based on the criterion if and how much they resocialise, is based on wrong premises. They are criticized in the article. In the second part of the article the author discusses the results of the empirical studies. It starts with the description of used research method and a general characteristic of the re-spondent group. The research was conducted in June and July 2010. It consisted in collecting opinions in questionnaires and in focus interviews with prisoners and prison staff. The groups were chosen in a random manner (132 prison officers and 350 prisoners) and they were representative for the population of the imprisoned in the regional authority of detention centres. Presentation of the most significant conclusions of the research starts with the fact that vast majority of convicts were imprisoned in a normal system had in practice a decisive influence on content and type of penitentiary influence. This system does not require corrective influence and thus penitentiary work concentrated on ensuring that the imprisoned are placed in conditions at least compliant with recommendations of European Prison Rules. In practice these conditions are included in prison rules. Most of all, they concern living space and prison regimen conditions without focus on education and correction work.
Year
Issue
Pages
91-133
Physical description
Dates
published
2012-01-01
Contributors
References
  • S. Lelental, Kodeks karny wykonawczy. Komentarz, 3. wydanie, Warszawa 2010
  • Międzynarodowe akty prawne odnoszące się do osób pozbawionych wolności, Biuro Prawne CZSW, Warszawa 2008
  • J. Larguier, Criminologie et sciences penitentiaires, Paris 2006
  • D. Lipton, R. Martinson, J. Wilks, The effeciveness of correctional treatment, New York 1975
  • P. Stępniak, Wymiar sprawiedliwości i praca socjalna w krajach Europy Zachodniej, Poznań 1998
  • M. Płatek, Systemy penitencjarne państw skandynawskich, Warszawa 2007
  • E. Goffman, Charakterystyka instytucji totalnych, w: W. Derczyński, A. Jasińska- Kania, J. Szacki (red.), Elementy teorii socjologicznych,, Warszawa 1975
  • Z. Hołda, K. Postulski, Kodeks karny wykonawczy, Komentarz, Gdańsk 2005
  • P. Moczydłowski, Drugie życie więzienia, Warszawa
  • T. Szymanowski, Z. Świda, Kodeks karny wykonawczy. Komentarz. Ustawy dodatkowe. Akty wykonawcze. Warszawa 1998
  • B. Hołyst, Bariery resocjalizacji penalnej, w: Problemy współczesnej penitencjarystyki w Polsce, t. I, Warszawa 1984
  • J. P. Cere, La prison, Paris 2007
  • A. Gouttenoire, Les droits de l’homme en prison, “Revue Penitentiaire” 3/2005
  • P. Combesse, Sociologie de la prison, Paris 2001
  • T. Szymanowski, Polityka karna i penitencjarna w Polsce w okresie przemian prawa karnego, Warszawa 2004
  • E. Goffman, Charakterystyka instytucji totalnych, w: Elementy teorii socjologicznych, Warszawa 1975
  • E. Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, New York 1959
  • P. Combesse, Sociologie de la prison, Paris 2006
  • H. Machel, Sens i bezsens resocjalizacji penitencjarnej. Kazus polski, Kraków 2006
  • H. Machel, Więzienie jako instytucja karna i resocjalizacyjna, Gdańsk 2003
  • M. Kosewski, Ludzie w sytuacji pokusy i upokorzenia, Warszawa 1985
  • Podstawowe problemy więziennictwa, CZSW, Warszawa 2009
  • P. Moczydłowski, Drugie życie więzienia, Warszawa 1991
  • S. Przybyliński, Podkultura więzienna – wielowymiarowość rzeczywistości penitencjarnej, Kraków 2007
  • L.K. Bowker, Prison Victimisation, New York 1989
  • P. Stępniak, Udział skazanego w kształtowaniu prognozy kryminologicznej, „Przegląd Więziennictwa Polskiego”, nr 61
  • P. Stępniak, Sądowa praca socjalna, „Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny”, nr 4/2007
  • C. Czapów, Wychowanie resocjalizujące, Warszawa 1978
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.ojs-doi-10_7420_AK2012C
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.