The author of the following article points some necessary conditions which must be fulfilled in order to make the decentralization of internal security, which concerns the fight against crime, efficient. Very often strategies concerning crime prevention which were elaborated by different central institutions are unsuccessful. It happens because the essence of the phenomenon is not taken into account and the strategies are limited to a simple pattern of transferring competence to the local government of the lowest level. Such a move very often turns out to be insufficient because a country, while creating a strategy, assume an existence of a strong local society which can bear the common responsibility for the performance of the tasks concerning the fight against crime but which also do not want to or cannot manage it, which in turn make the level of crime and society’s frustration higher. The author thinks that a developed society, based on knowledge, conscious of its role and responsibility should become an equal partner for the state institutions within creating proper mechanisms, which will enable the whole country to function as a complex social organism. According to the author one should not identify the security only with individual or collective human behaviour. Its nature also relates to the organization of social life and living conditions in order not to allow cases of emergency or cases which provoke such emergency to arise. Within this aspect, entities of the local government, after prior consultation with the police, should make investments in favour of security – especially within monitoring of endangered places or new architectural and town planning solutions.
Imprisonment which is implemented in the present form in European countries has reached its capabilities in terms of re-socialisation, if any function apart from isolating might have been achieved. This has happened because the specificity of penitentiary isolation results in individuals being unable to acquire real-skills to live in the society in accordance with its rules. The paradox of this penalty is that its conditioning favours the destruction of a human, the loss of their ability to function in society rather than their re-socialisation and building the appropriate social attitudes. Prisonisation which affects each prisoner to varying degrees is mostly to blame, but also other elements inseparably connected with penitentiary isolation. In order to mitigate the influence of negative factors it is necessary to implement the appropriate mechanisms, which, however, are not able to eliminate negative effects of imprisonment, but they are able to mitigate them, as already indicated. The aim of the following publication is an attempt to find a solution, identify which factors negatively influence re-socialisation of prisoners in penitentiary isolation and if there are still any possibilities to improve the system of execution of imprisonment sentence before the penalty in its present form disappears from legal systems. The authors also ask a question: Can a man be taught to live in society in accordance with the rules accepted by it, in spite of the sometimes long-term isolation of this man from the society?
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.