On the 23rd of May 2025, RESCALED held its annual General Assembly in Salzburg, Austria. This year’s event marked a meaningful gathering to reflect, (re)connect, and look ahead.
In addition to reflecting on the key highlights and achievements of the past year, including our growing impact and the expanding reach of the RESCALED movement across Europe. We took time to (re)connect, with new members bringing fresh perspectives, and long-standing members sharing valuable insights and impact. But most importantly, we looked ahead together, reaffirming our shared vision for the future and the path we are taking as a movement.
This year, we were proud to welcome three new members who each enrich our network with their own unique strengths and commitments:
Diagrama Foundation (United Kingdom)
Diagrama Foundation supports vulnerable children and young people in custodial and care settings. Their approach is based on trauma-informed care, restorative justice principles, and child development theory. Operating small-scale, therapeutic residential settings, that move away from punitive, institutional approaches and instead prioritise relational security, personal growth, and reintegration into the community. Diagrama has charity status in England and Wales and is part of Fundación Diagrama, one of Spain’s largest NGOs.
Jalta – Cultural and Social Centre (Slovakia)
Based in Slovakia, Jalta works at the intersection of community engagement, policy advocacy, and creative methodologies. Through projects like #stopdiscrimination they address systemic issues affecting vulnerable groups and promote inclusive reform through public advocacy, workshops, and educational campaigns, while projects like inVulnerables/DAR and Theatregeneration offer creative and educational methodologies that support the reintegration of justice-involved youth and vulnerable individuals through European collaborations.
Dr. Olta Qejvani (Albania)
Dr. Olta Qejvani is a lecturer in European Law and has over a decade of experience across academia, civil society, and public administration. She has represented Albania at the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, where her project ‘Different local communities, same youth perspective’ was recognized as one of the best initiatives for youth participation at the local level.
Board elections
We also proudly re-elected Gonçalo Noronha Andrade and Birte Metz to the RESCALED Board. Their ongoing leadership will continue to strengthen and guide our movement.
We look ahead with energy and purpose, moving forward as a European movement with members across 20 countries, committed to driving justice reform.
RESCALED GA Salzburg – 2025RESCALED GA Salzburg – 2025RESCALED GA Salzburg – 2025RESCALED GA Salzburg – 2025RESCALED GA Salzburg – 2025RESCALED GA Salzburg – 2025
Around the world, women make up a small but growing group within the prison population. According to the World Prison Brief1 over 733,000 women and girls are incarcerated globally, accounting for about 6.8% of the total prison population worldwide. In Europe, the proportion is even lower, around 5% of people in prison are women2.
While this percentage may seem small, it masks a deeply concerning trend: the dramatic and disproportionate growth in women’s3 imprisonment. Since 2000, the global women prison population has surged by 57%, compared to a 22% increase for men over the same period4. This rapid rise is particularly severe in certain regions and countries. Both Asia and Oceania have seen their women prison populations more than double since 2000, with countries like Cambodia, Indonesia, and Brazil experiencing explosive growth. The highest numbers of incarcerated women are found in the USA (174,607), China (145,000), and Brazil (50,441)5–6–7.
While Europe has seen a slight overall decline in women’s imprisonment, patterns vary significantly by country 8. Excluding Russia, the women prison population in the rest of Europe actually grew by about 25% from 2000 to 20249. Women make up approximately 5-6% of the European prison population, with notable variations, from as high as 9.5% in Malta and 8.5% in Czechia to as low as 3.2% in France and 3.7% in Bulgaria10. Some countries like Poland see their women prisoner population more than double since 200011.
Understanding women’s pathways to incarceration
Incarcerated women often follow different pathways into crime than men, reflecting different life experiences and vulnerabilities12. Their paths are frequently characterized by economic hardship, poverty, low levels of education, lack of employment opportunities, and homelessness.
While men dominate statistics for violent crime, women are more often imprisoned for non-violent offenses, particularly property and drug-related crimes13. For example, in England and Wales, shoplifting accounts for 40% of women’s prison sentences under six months, while almost two-thirds (64%) of prison sentences given to women were for less than six months14.
A system not designed for women
Prison systems worldwide share a fundamental problem: they were originally designed by men and for men15. As women constitute a minority of the prison population, their specific needs are often overlooked within this man-centric framework. The ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach fundamentally fails to provide a safe, humane, or rehabilitative environment for many incarcerated women.
Key challenges include:
Histories of trauma and mental health:
Women behind bars are more likely than men to have suffered abuse and trauma prior to incarceration. Over 90% have experienced some form of childhood trauma, including physical or sexual abuse, neglect, bullying, or witnessing extreme violence16, often continuing into adulthood with intimate partner violence.
This continuous exposure to trauma contributes to high rates of mental health issues17, with studies showing 57% of women under probation supervision in Ireland experiencing mental health problems (compared to 40% of men)18.
Reproductive and healthcare needs:
Women have specific reproductive and sexual healthcare needs that prisons commonly fail to address19. Many incarcerated women are of child-bearing age and approximately 5-10% of women are pregnant when admitted to prison20, requiring prenatal care, proper nutrition, and childbirth arrangements. Even basic reproductive health can be neglected in prisons, with inadequate access to gynecological services, mammograms, pap smears, and even menstrual hygiene products.
Safety and dignity
Women in prison are particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment, abuse, and violence, perpetrated by both staff and fellow incarcerated individuals21. Lack of privacy, supervision by male staff in sensitive situations, and invasive or humiliating search procedures can violate dignity and exacerbate feelings of vulnerability and fear. Although International standards recommend searches be conducted by women staff, yet this is not always implemented22.
Family responsibilities and caregiving
Most incarcerated women are mothers, and many were the primary caregivers for their children prior to arrest23. In Italy, at the end of 2021 nearly 64% of women in detention were mothers24, and in the UK, an estimated 17,500 children were separated from their mothers by imprisonment in 2020. This separation doubles the risk of poor mental health in children and increases their risk of poverty and housing insecurity25. Traditional prisons, with distant locations and limited visitation, make maintaining family bonds extremely difficult.
International standards and reform movements
The international community has formally recognized the inadequacy of treating incarcerated women identically to men and the need for gender-specific approaches. International standards have been developed to address these issues, like the United Nations Bangkok Rules (2010). These rules set standards for non-discrimination and gender-responsive approaches, covering admission procedures, healthcare, humane treatment, and family contact26 and they emphasize the need for alternatives to imprisonment for women27.
The Council of Europe has also addressed women’s incarceration through the European Prison Rules (revised in 2006, updated in 2020)28, which emphasize that imprisonment should be a last resort, especially for mothers of young children. These standards call for prison conditions that respect human rights, tailored healthcare, protection from abuse, and support for family contact.
Despite these detailed international and European standards, a significant implementation gap persists.
RESCALED Movement
For women experiencing incarceration large-scale prisons often fail to meet their (most basic) needs. But what if women were incarcerated in a more humane, community-integrated setting?
Detention houses provide exactly that through three key principles:
Small-scale: Detention houses typically accommodate only about 8 to 30 residents, creating more personal, human-centered environments. Finland’s Vanaja Prison exemplifies this approach by housing up to 57 women in small-scale house units of five people each, plus a special family house for parents with children. This village-like arrangement creates a more intimate environment where staff can develop meaningful relationships with each resident and tailor support to individual needs, particularly helpful for women who have experienced trauma.
Differentiation: This principle means placing individuals in the context best suited to their specific circumstances. In these kinds of contexts, staff are trained in gender-responsive practices and the programming is tailored specifically for women’s needs, covering topics like healthy relationships, parenting skills, and women’s health.
The prison for women in Řepy (Czech Republic) demonstrates differentiation through its specialized selection process and treatment approach. With a capacity of 56 women, Řepy divides residents into smaller groups based on security level.
Community-Integration: Detention houses are embedded in the community rather than isolated, allowing residents to remain literally and figuratively closer to normal life. Scotland’s Community Custody Units illustrate this well, designed with family-friendly visit areas including community rooms and gardens that create child-friendly environments. This integration reduces stigma, improves access to community services like healthcare and education, and makes regular family visits more feasible.
The economic argument for community-based solutions is compelling. Research shows that the cost per woman at Women’s Centres ranges from £1,223 to £4,125 depending on their level of need, while a place in prison costs £52,121 per year. Despite this clear cost advantage, investment in Women’s Centres tends to be short-term, inconsistent, and inadequate, limiting their potential impact29.
By shifting from large prisons to detention houses, RESCALED envisions a justice system that is not only more humane, but also more effective for society.
Women benefit from environments that respect their dignity, address their trauma, and keep them connected to their families. Communities benefit as well: because small-scale, community-integrated detention houses are more transparent and oriented toward reintegration, they can reduce recidivism and aid public safety in the long run.
For women in detention, who have too often been unseen and underserved, detention houses offer a chance to be treated as people, not statistics, as mothers, workers, and community members who, with the right support, can successfully turn their lives around.
About the WOMEN Project: To address the challenges outlined in this blog post, RESCALED is proud to be leading the “Workspace for Mapping, Engaging, and Networking with, for, and by Incarcerated Women” (WOMEN) project. Click here to learn more.
Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. (2025, February). Female prison population growing faster than male, worldwide. World Prison Brief. ↩︎
Irish Penal Reform Trust. (2024, June) . Council of Europe: ‘SPACE I’ Annual penal statistics: Prison Populations 2023. ↩︎
Throughout this text, we use the term “women” instead of “female” to center the social and gendered dimensions of incarceration. Where sources use the term “female” (e.g., in data sets or reports), this reflects their original language. Our choice aligns with person-centered, gender-responsive language. ↩︎
Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. (2025, February). Female prison population growing faster than male, worldwide. World Prison Brief. ↩︎
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2021, June). Data Matters No. 1: Nearly twelve million people imprisoned globally, nearly one-third unsentenced with prisons overcrowded in half of all countries. ↩︎
Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. (2025, February). Female prison population growing faster than male, worldwide. World Prison Brief. ↩︎
Webster, R. (2025, February). Global female incarceration on the rise. Russell Webster. ↩︎
Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. (2025, February). Female prison population growing faster than male, worldwide. World Prison Brief. ↩︎
Fair, H., & Walmsley, R. (2022, October). World Female Imprisonment List (5ª edition). Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. ↩︎
Fair, H., & Walmsley, R. (2022, October). World Female Imprisonment List (5ª edition). Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. ↩︎
Council on Criminal Justice. (2024, August). Women’s justice: A preliminary assessment of women in the criminal justice system. ↩︎
Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. (2025, February). Female prison population growing faster than male, worldwide. World Prison Brief. ↩︎
Prison Reform Trust. (2025, April). Resetting the approach to women’s imprisonment. ↩︎
Penal Reform International. (n.d.). UN Bangkok Rules. ↩︎
Council on Criminal Justice. (2024, August). Women’s justice: A preliminary assessment of women in the criminal justice system. ↩︎
Penal Reform International, & Association for the Prevention of Torture. (2015). Women in detention: A guide to gender-sensitive monitoring (2nd ed.). ↩︎
Probation Service. (2021, June). Towards a ‘best practice’ approach to working with women who offend. ↩︎
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2014). Handbook on women and imprisonment (2nd ed.). United Nations. ↩︎
Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Reproductive health care for incarcerated women in the United States. Wikipedia. ↩︎
Abasguliyeva, K., Misenheimer, A., Ram, S., Tromboo, H., & Tsoi, K. W. (2024, September 11). Prison in Pink: The Struggles of Female Incarceration. OxJournal. ↩︎
Penal Reform International. (2013). UN Bangkok Rules on women offenders and prisoners: Short guide. ↩︎
Council on Criminal Justice. (2024, August). Women’s justice: A preliminary assessment of women in the criminal justice system. ↩︎
Associazione Antigone. (2023). Dalla parte di Antigone: Cartella stampa. ↩︎
Prison Reform Trust. (2025, April). Resetting the approach to women’s imprisonment. ↩︎
Penal Reform International. (n.d.). UN Bangkok Rules. ↩︎
United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children. (2020, December 10). Leading human rights experts call for overdue implementation of the UN Bangkok Rules a decade after they were adopted. ↩︎
Quaker Council for European Affairs. (2007). Women in prison: A review of the conditions in member states of the Council of Europe. ↩︎
Women’s Budget Group. (2020, October). The case for sustainable funding for women’s centres. ↩︎
Thandiwé Devriendt, the student social media manager at RESCALED, is a criminologist currently pursuing her master’s degree with a keen interest in forensic psychology and minority groups in vulnerable situations. From her studies in Criminology, work, and personal experience, she has chosen to write a blog post on the often underexposed topic of LGBTQ+ individuals in the criminal justice system. In her upcoming post, Thandiwé explores why detention houses, compared to traditional prisons, could offer a more humane and dignified detention experience for LGBTQ+ individuals.
The landscape of the criminal justice system for LGBTQ+ individuals is fraught with unique challenges and systemic inequalities that are often overlooked. Detention houses could be a way to address some of these issues, through their three principles: small-scale, differentiation and community-integration.
Status quo of the LGTBQ+[1] community in the criminal justice system
But what do the current numbers say?
When examining the current numbers and information provided the minority group seems to face several challenges. Firstly, LGBTQ+ individuals are more likely to be incarcerated. LGBTQ+ youth and transgender people, in particular, are disproportionately more likely to enter the criminal justice system due to a history of bias, abuse and profiling (National Center for Transgender Equality, 2014).
Secondly, they are more likely to face abuse when residing in prisons. They are often victims of daily humiliation, physical and sexual abuse. Additionally, they are faced with the inability to speak about these experiences due to fearing it will get worse if you complain. The fear often prevents them from complaining. For instance the European Comittee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) has met several transgender women held in male sections of prisons who reported a feeling of unsafety, verbal abuse by staff and in some cases sexual abuse and assault by fellow incarcerated people.Furthermore, many LGBTQ+ individuals are placed in solitary confinement for extended periods solely due to their identity. For example, a report published in 2020 showed that trans women in Honduras prisons tend to be more severely punished, often through extended periods of solitary confinement. These phenomena are often worsened by the poor conditions in the prison systems: overcrowding, physical and sexual violence & heavy reliance on solitary confinement are common (Penal Reform International 2021; CPT, 2024; National Center for Transgender Equality, 2014).
Thirdly, both staff and other incarcerated people contribute to the abuse and mistreatment of LGBTQ+ individuals (National Center for Transgender Equality, 2014; CPT, 2024).
Fourth, the CPT observed that transgender individuals in prisons potentially face higher risks of self-harm, suicide, and violence-related psychological trauma, paralleling the high risks observed outside prison settings. Research suggests that factors such as discrimination, family rejection, and internalized or externalized transphobia contribute to these risks. The LGTBQ+ youth in specific have often faced such challenges, more specific family rejection, homelessness and hostility by the safety net (f.ex. foster care). This not only heightens the risks of above mentioned phenomena but also paves a way to possible criminal behavior (CPT, 2024; National Center for Transgender Equality, 2014).
Lastly, transgender and gender nonconforming people can face additional forms of mistreatment. Although practices are changing, several facilities still reside strictly according to their genital anatomy, regardless of their gender identity. Consequently their vulnerability to abuse increases when accommodated with a different gender from which they identify with (National Center for Transgender Equality, 2014; CPT, 2024).
Creating an inclusive environment according to the three principles
Where there are challenges, there’s room for opportunities, in which detention houses are one of them. Detention houses could offer several possibilities for the LGBTQ+ community who are currently incarcerated in large prison institutions. By focusing on the three key principles of detention houses —small-scale, differentiation, and community-integration — we can create a more supportive and restorative experience for LGBTQ+ individuals in the criminal justice system.
In small-scale detention houses, residents are given the opportunity to become more familiar with their environment and staff, fostering a sense of community and security. With fewer residents, the pressure on the staff is relieved. Consequently, the staff can obtain more personal contacts and insights into the group interaction, thus ensuring that any abuse or mistreatment by fellow residents or staff is promptly addressed and that any signs of suicidal thoughts or self-harm are early on noticed and treated.
Furthermore, small-scale detention houses can arrange flexible housing arrangements tailored to the needs and identities of LGBTQ+ individuals according to the judicial possibilities. This differentiated approach allows personalized solutions that ensure the safety and dignity of LGBTQ+ residents without disadvantaging them. This setting may allow for LGBTQ+ individuals to be housed according to their self-reported identity rather than their genital anatomy, making it easier to respect their gender identity and reduce their vulnerability to abuse. This differentiated approach can be co-created by persons with lived experience (formerly/currently incarcerated & an LGTBQ+ member), by doing so one can create a truly succesful implementation and approach.
Community-integrationcan be particularly challenging for LGBTQ+ individuals, who may face double exclusion due to their sexual orientation or gender identity and their criminal past. Community-integrated detention houses focus on preparing residents for successful reintegration by introducing them to supportive environments and resources. By fostering connections with neighbors and community members through activities and interactions, detention houses can help change perceptions and promote acceptance of both LGBTQ+ individuals and those with a criminal past. This approach not only aids in the successful community-integration of LGBTQ+ individuals, but also contributes to a more inclusive society. By utilizing the ecosystem of a detention house, LGBTQ+ individuals can more easily access essential services such as medical treatments for transitioning and therapy, ensuring comprehensive support and care compared to what is typically available in prisons. This is made possible by actively collaborating with actors in this healthy ecosystem to enhance accessibility and inclusivity in healthcare and support services.
By embracing these three principles and exploring legal and regulatory avenues, detention facilities can provide a more humane and dignified experience for LGBTQ+ individuals in the criminal justice system. This approach ensures they receive the respect, support, and opportunities they deserve. This blog post also serves as a call to civil society, especially in Europe, to delve deeper into and address the unique experiences and challenges faced by this community.
[1] While some findings originally pertained to a narrower category like LGTB, for this blog post, we have opted to use a broader term, specifically LGBTQ+. Our intention is to promote inclusivity, as we believe that the broader LGBTQ+ community encounters similar challenges.
Sources:
CPT. (2024). Transgender persons in prison. Council of Europe. Retrieved from: 1680af7216 (coe.int)
What advantages can a social enterprise bring to the management and development of a detention house? This is one of the questions we ask ourselves as members of the RESCALED network – the European Movement for Detention Houses – to implement or improve, in different countries, alternative detention facilities to prisons. Based on the fundamental three pillars of small-scale, differentiation and community-integration – detention houses not only humanize conviction but contribute to the creation of safer, equal and more inclusive societies. As a network of organizations, we believe that the collective reflection on ways to turn this vision into reality involves not only the continuous exchange of good practices but also the pooling of doubts and questions to be answered together.
One of the projects Reshape is involved in as a member of the RESCALED Movement is INSPIRE, a project funded by the European Union’s Erasmus+ program which, as evoked by its acronym, has Incarceration & Social Purpose in Restorative Cities as its main theme. INSPIRE is a collective learning process about detention houses and their dynamic interaction with their local urban, economic and social context. In the virtuous intersection of theory and practice, we try to answer the following questions: What are good examples of restorative justice in relation to detention houses? How can a detention house be implemented? How can a detention house finance itself through a social enterprise? And how can we enhance and amplify the voice of lived experience during the implementation process?
The focus on social entrepreneurship emerges as an effective response in the search for a circular approach between the desire to build paths of personal development, the promotion of social inclusion and sustainable projects for people who have to serve a sentence according to a perspective that does not isolate them but capacitates them (also) in the world of work. And, since this perspective tends towards real social reintegration, the community-integration pillar becomes crucially important.
But what are social enterprises in the first place? They can be defined as businesses “with primarily social objectives whose surpluses are principally reinvested for that purpose in the business or the community, rather than being driven by the need to maximize profit for shareholders and owners” (DTI, 2002, 13). Unlike commonly understood companies, social enterprises create employment and services with a social purpose, democratically engaging people and developing benefits for people with socioeconomic disadvantages and vulnerability, under the terms of self- and community empowerment.
These kinds of enterprises have a long history in the socio-educational world, born to provide answers linked to the job market while pursuing broader goals such as learning, sharing practices, developing skills and creating environments conducive to the inclusion of people who are very often marginalized or cared for in an assistentialist way. However, it is only recently that more in-depth reflection and knowledge about these realities has been developed, especially in the world of social justice.
One of the many examples of social enterprise within the prison system is the restaurant “InGalera” in the penitentiary of Bollate (Milan, Italy). This unique restaurant is open to the public for lunch and dinner, where people can have an experience which is simultaneously culinary and social: the employees in the preparation and serving of refined dishes are people who are serving a sentence and/or preparing for release, assisted and trained by a professional chef and maître d’hôtel. Many of the workers can receive specific training to obtain a hospitality diploma in the Paolo Frisi Hotel School, located in one of the sections reserved for job placement in the penitentiary of Bollate. “The restaurant was created with the purpose of offering regularly employed prisoners the possibility of learning or regaining a work ethic. It is a meaningful journey in which they receive professional training and learn to be responsible. Here, they prepare to enter civil society and the work arena.” (InGalera presentation). Born in 2004, InGalera keeps representing a strong methodology for training and employment, also thanks to the support of the Cariplo Foundation, the Italian Minister of Justice and other organizations that foster the creation of social enterprises.
However, within the INSPIRE project, of greatest interest is the implementation of social enterprises within detention houses, conceived as a fruitful way of supporting pathways of successful reentries and contributing to small-scale facilities sustaining themselves economically by not relying on one source of funding. The interweaving of detention houses and social enterprises can take place in very different organizational ways, considering that the activities and services offered by social enterprises can be developed internally or externally, by the NGO running the detention house itself or by other organizations.
What is interesting in this kind of approach, as aforementioned, is that social enterprises respond to two complementary challenges regarding both economic and socio-educational purposes. The successful running of these realities therefore leads to the possibility of the detention house becoming more and more self-financed thanks to the incomes coming from the enterprise’s activities while representing an interesting pedagogical method for the residents of the detention house itself. In socio-educational terms, participation in work activities of this kind promotes job training and the development of skills that are both marketable (for example: woodworking, gardening, electrical maintenance…) and personal. Thanks to structured employment opportunities, people in detention houses can prepare themselves for a smoother transition to liberty as their social reintegration is supported by the benefits of their engagement in meaningful work: major confidence and self-esteem, sense of accomplishment and proactiveness, stronger working chances, sense of belonging in a supportive network of people which can extend beyond the workplace.
The SeeHaus Juvenile Prison in free forms in Leonberg (Germany) serves as a good example of how a detention house can host a social business program, not only to generate income for the maintenance of the house but also to offer work and promote job skills to its residents. Its business regards training and the promotion of a wide range of activities (gardening, landscaping, metallurgical work, carpentry, construction, and joinery). Although the income from these activities is not enough to cover the house costs – mostly covered by public funding and donations – their social enterprise is an efficient tool for education, training and social inclusion. Through offering services to the neighbourhood, the social enterprises managed by SeeHaus promote greater integration with the local community and encourage professional skills for residents. Indeed, social enterprises play a fundamental role in promoting change in the local community, positively influencing social and economic dynamics. The work medium helps mend the tears in the social fabric, creating the conditions for the inclusion and empowerment of marginalized groups of people and stimulating local economies, where profits are often reinvested into community initiatives for transversal well-being. The collaboration between social enterprises and detention houses exemplifies the transformative potential of businesses with a social mission to create a more equal and cohesive society.
It is in this respect that social enterprises contribute to the realization of the community integration pillar which underlies the RESCALED approach. Implementing detention houses requires the creation of a welcoming environment for their residents, encouraging mutual involvement and responsibility with people living in the area, besides collaboration with other services and/or professionals (social and healthcare programs, local governments, municipalities and volunteers).
The integration of detention houses, especially when newly built, in local communities is a big challenge when it comes to cohabitation with neighbors: stigmatization, fear and misconceptions can create barriers and vicious circles that deepen the sense of isolation that people deprived of their liberty often experience. The NIMBY (NotInMyBackYard) effect represents all those attitudes of opposition towards projects that are seen as negative for the neighborhood – for example detention houses – which are often brought about by preconceived ideas about conviction. The feeling of threat, the fear of irrational risks and the difficulty in acceptance mostly come from a lack of information and sensibilization.
Social enterprises can step in and offer activities that can reduce the NIMBY effect or even initiate YIMBY (YesInMyBackYard) processes, generating value for the community as a whole. Initiatives that bring people together throughout shared spaces and activities like those exemplified before, allow residents to get to know a reality they probably used to have many prejudices about, transforming stereotypes into faces and names. Moreover, it can represent a pathway for a more restorative approach to justice, symbolically and financially speaking, reducing recidivism and contributing to a general feeling of safety and fairness.
Léa Sébastien (2013). “Le NIMBY est mort. Vive la résistance éclairée : le cas de l’opposition à un projet de décharge, Essonne, France”, Sociologies pratiques, vol. 27, n°2, pp. 145-165.
