Women in detention: Challenges and new approaches

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)567.

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:

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. (2025, February). Female prison population growing faster than male, worldwide. World Prison Brief.  ↩︎
  2. Irish Penal Reform Trust. (2024, June) . Council of Europe: ‘SPACE I’ Annual penal statistics: Prison Populations 2023.  ↩︎
  3. 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. ↩︎
  4. Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. (2025, February). Female prison population growing faster than male, worldwide. World Prison Brief. ↩︎
  5. 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.  ↩︎
  6. Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. (2025, February). Female prison population growing faster than male, worldwide. World Prison Brief. ↩︎
  7. Webster, R. (2025, February). Global female incarceration on the rise. Russell Webster. ↩︎
  8. Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. (2025, February). Female prison population growing faster than male, worldwide. World Prison Brief. ↩︎
  9. Fair, H., & Walmsley, R. (2022, October). World Female Imprisonment List (5ª edition). Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. ↩︎
  10. Eurostat. (2025, April). Prison statistics. Statistics Explained. ↩︎
  11. Fair, H., & Walmsley, R. (2022, October). World Female Imprisonment List (5ª edition). Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. ↩︎
  12. Council on Criminal Justice. (2024, August). Women’s justice: A preliminary assessment of women in the criminal justice system.  ↩︎
  13. Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. (2025, February). Female prison population growing faster than male, worldwide. World Prison Brief.  ↩︎
  14. Prison Reform Trust. (2025, April). Resetting the approach to women’s imprisonment.  ↩︎
  15. Penal Reform International. (n.d.). UN Bangkok Rules.  ↩︎
  16. Council on Criminal Justice. (2024, August). Women’s justice: A preliminary assessment of women in the criminal justice system. ↩︎
  17. Penal Reform International, & Association for the Prevention of Torture. (2015). Women in detention: A guide to gender-sensitive monitoring (2nd ed.). ↩︎
  18. Probation Service. (2021, June). Towards a ‘best practice’ approach to working with women who offend. ↩︎
  19. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2014). Handbook on women and imprisonment (2nd ed.). United Nations.  ↩︎
  20. Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Reproductive health care for incarcerated women in the United States. Wikipedia.  ↩︎
  21. Abasguliyeva, K., Misenheimer, A., Ram, S., Tromboo, H., & Tsoi, K. W. (2024, September 11). Prison in Pink: The Struggles of Female Incarceration. OxJournal. ↩︎
  22. Penal Reform International. (2013). UN Bangkok Rules on women offenders and prisoners: Short guide.  ↩︎
  23. Council on Criminal Justice. (2024, August). Women’s justice: A preliminary assessment of women in the criminal justice system. ↩︎
  24. Associazione Antigone. (2023). Dalla parte di Antigone: Cartella stampa. ↩︎
  25. Prison Reform Trust. (2025, April). Resetting the approach to women’s imprisonment. ↩︎
  26. Penal Reform International. (n.d.). UN Bangkok Rules.  ↩︎
  27. 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. ↩︎
  28. Quaker Council for European Affairs. (2007). Women in prison: A review of the conditions in member states of the Council of Europe. ↩︎
  29. Women’s Budget Group. (2020, October). The case for sustainable funding for women’s centres. ↩︎

Normalisation as a Mirror: What Prisons Reveal About Society

Welcome to Let’s Talk RESCALED, the podcast where we dive deep into the heart of justice reform. Hosted by Noa Shoshan and brought to you by RESCALED, a European Movement dedicated to reshaping our approach to incarceration.

In our third episode, host Noa Shoshan engages in an insightful conversation with Helene de Vos, Executive Director of RESCALED and former prison researcher at the Leuven Institute of Criminology.

During this episode, we explore the principle of normalization in prison systems, comparing Norwegian and Belgian approaches to detention. Our guest shares valuable insights from her doctoral research on the normalization principle, detailing how smaller-scale facilities like Norway’s Leira prison create environments and initiatives that better prepare individuals for life after release.

Discover how normalized detention settings impact both incarcerated individuals and staff, and learn about the challenges and opportunities in implementing these approaches across different cultural contexts. This conversation highlights how prison conditions reflect broader societal values and why system change requires looking both inside detention facilities and at the society that shapes them.

“When you bring in living conditions from outside, like customers coming to the garden center, you’re not artificially normalizing these interactions, they are normal. These are real, normal situations which are really important in life after release.” – Helene de Vos

RESIZE – Reshaping Correctional Competencies through RESCALED Innovation

For current and future workforce adaptation based on profiles of competencies, recognition of prior learning, micro-credentialing and certification, following correctional systemic changes in Europe.

The “RESIZE” project—Reshaping Correctional Competencies through RESCALED Innovation—is an innovative European partnership designed to address the evolving needs of the staff within the correctional ecosystem. Running from 2025 to 2029 and led by CPIP Romania, RESIZE builds upon the LiberateSkill Pact for Skills. The project will focus on upskilling correctional professionals to navigate and adapt to ongoing systemic changes across Europe. This will be achieved through micro-credentialing, certification, and the recognition of prior learning, ensuring a more dynamic approach to staff development.

The project focuses on small-scale, community-integrated detention houses that align with the RESCALED concept striving to enhance correctional standards and practices. As one of only eight Blueprint Alliances selected by the EU, RESIZE emphasizes a more humane and effective approach to detention, promoting integrated detention houses that prioritize both reintegration and community integration.

With the active collaboration of 24 partner organizations, RESIZE is set to drive transformative change in the future of detention across Europe.

Objectives

The RESIZE project is designed to address the evolving needs of correctional professionals in response to the transition towards small-scale detention houses and a broader shift towards a focus on reintegration and reform. This shift directly impacts the reskilling and upskilling of correctional staff in several key areas:

Focus on rehabilitation techniques: As the correctional system places greater emphasis on reintegration and social integration, there is an increasing demand for staff skilled in counseling, social work, and reintegration techniques. This requires the reskilling of current employees and the upskilling of new hires to effectively engage with incarcerated people in programs that support their successful reintegration into society.

Community-integration: Small-scale detention houses emphasize community integration and support systems as part of the reintegration process. Correctional staff working in these settings require training in community engagement, outreach, and collaboration with external stakeholders such as social services, educational institutions, and local community organizations. Reskilling programs can provide staff with the necessary competencies to foster positive relationships with community partners and facilitate successful offender reintegration.

Interdisciplinary collaboration: The shift towards rehabilitation-oriented correctional practices underscores the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration within the workforce. Correctional staff need to work closely with professionals from diverse fields, including mental health specialists, substance abuse counselors, educators, and social workers, to address the complex needs of incarcerated people. Reskilling initiatives can promote cross-disciplinary training and teamwork, enabling staff to effectively collaborate with colleagues from different backgrounds and expertise areas.

Adoption of innovative practices: As detention houses embrace innovative approaches to incarceration, such as restorative justice, trauma-informed care, and cognitive-behavioral therapy, correctional staff must be equipped with the knowledge and skills to implement these practices effectively. Reskilling programs can introduce staff to evidence-based interventions and provide training in their implementation, ensuring that they are equipped to support the rehabilitation and well-being of incarcerated people.

Work packages

To achieve these objectives, RESIZE is organized into five structured work packages (WPs):

  • Workpackage 1: Management and coordination of the project, ensuring effective dissemination, quality assurance, and evaluation of project outputs.
  • Workpackage 2: Conducting a comprehensive needs assessment to identify the skills gaps and training requirements within the correctional workforce.
  • Workpackage 3: Development of a European Qualification Map and Correctional Core Competencies Curricula, providing a standardized framework for training programs.
  • Workpackage 4: Delivery of Core Curricula and training programs, emphasizing a lifelong learning continuum and specialized tracks within Centers of Vocational Excellence (CoVEs).
  • Workpackage 5: Designing a Long-Term Action Plan for sustainable workforce development, visibility, and dissemination. This includes the establishment of Regional Pacts for Skills, a European Correctional Competencies Observatory, a Micro-credentialing Catalogue, and policy proposals for implementing Recognition, Validation, and Accreditation (RVA).

RESIZE represents a significant step forward in reshaping correctional training, ensuring that correctional professionals across Europe are equipped to work within a modern, rehabilitation-focused detention system.

Results

The project aims to implement regional Pacts for Skills and develop high-quality curricula to enhance the competencies of both current and future staff within the ecosystem of correctional facilities. This will ensure that staff are equipped with the necessary skills to effectively engage in changing correctional practices, support community-based detention models and address the complex needs of incarcerated people.

Consortium of Partners

Romania: Centrul Pentru Promovarea Invatarii Permanente (CPIP) (Project leader), Penitenciarul Timisoara, Penitenciarul Gherla, Greece: The Greek federation of Correctional Officers (OSYE), Athens Lifelong Learning Institute, Odyssea AMKE, Panepistimio Aigaiou (University of the Aegean) Slovenia: CIK TREBNJE SI Spain: Universidad de Valladolid, Qualificalia Analytics, S.L. Denmark: BrainLog, Danish Prison Union Albania: Luarasi University, Shërbimi i Kontrollit të Brendshëm në Sistemin e Burgjeve Austria: Richtungswechsel Croatia: Ustanova za Obrazovanje Odraslih Dante Italy: Centro Internazionale per la Promozione dell’Educazione e lo Sviluppo (CEIPES), Centro Studi – Opera Don Calabria,  Germany: Interchange Non-Profit (GUG) North Macedonia: Stabilitas Skopje Portugal: Aproximar – Cooperativa de Solidariedade Social Bosnia and Herzegovina: Univerzitet u Istocnom Sarajevu,  Switzerland: United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) Belgium: RESCALED

Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them.

WOMEN: The Workspace for Mapping, Engaging, and Networking with, for, and by Incarcerated Women

The Workspace for Mapping, Engaging, and Networking with, for, and by Incarcerated Women (WOMEN) project addresses the unique challenges faced by incarcerated women in Europe. Despite making up only 6.1% of the prison population1, women in detention often experience greater vulnerability due to past trauma, caregiving responsibilities, and limited access to rehabilitation programs. 

Recognizing this issue, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality presented a Motion for a European Parliament Resolution in 2008, emphasizing that women’s incarceration reflects their broader societal position. The resolution argued that prisons are “essentially designed, built and run by men for men”, failing to accommodate the specific needs of incarcerated women.

To bridge this gap, the WOMEN project promotes a paradigm shift from large-scale prisons to detention houses, which are small-scale,  differentiated and community-integrated facilities that better support women’s lives during and after detention. The initiative aims to develop expertise in working with incarcerated women and facilitate knowledge-sharing across Europe.

To achieve this, the project will adopt a Human-Centered Design approach and incorporate multiple perspectives for an in-depth understanding of incarcerated women’s diversity and their needs. Through (online) workshops and visits to best practices, WOMEN aims to enable discussions and exchanges between professionals, academics, policymakers, and individuals with lived experience. This know-how will contribute to and be disseminated by various RESCALED Knowledge Workspaces.

The WOMEN project, funded by Erasmus+, is a transnational collaboration involving three core teams from different countries. These include RESCALED, a European movement based in Belgium focused on the implementation of detention houses, Rubikon Center, a Czech NGO that helps individuals move beyond their criminal past, and Silta, a Finnish non-profit organization dedicated to increasing societal equality, participation, and welfare. With the support of Erasmus+, these organizations aim to improve conditions for incarcerated women and enhance their opportunities for maintaining integration with society.

  1. World Female Imprisonment List 6th ed. ↩︎

Amsterdam Southeast – Evolving towards a Restorative District

Welcome to Let’s Talk RESCALED, the podcast where we dive deep into the heart of justice reform. Hosted by Noa Shoshan and brought to you by RESCALED, a European Movement dedicated to reshaping our approach to incarceration.

In our second episode, host Noa Shoshan engages in an inspiring conversation with two changemakers from the Netherlands: Gert Jan Slump, criminologist and co-founder of Restorative Justice Netherlands, and Tanja Jadnanansing, Chair of the Executive Board for Amsterdam Zuidoost/ Amsterdam South East.

During this second episode we discover how Amsterdam South East is embracing restorative justice principles and community-centered approaches to create positive change. Our guests share personal insights about their collaboration and vision for justice reform, including their view on detention houses as alternative to large scale prisons.

💡 Discover how concepts like “Love and Law” are reshaping community responses to justice, and learn about practical examples of restorative practices in action. This conversation highlights how local communities can lead the way in developing more humane and effective approaches to conflict, justice and incarceration.

“We want this togetherness. We want people to live together, but we know that when people come together, there will be challenging events. So we are not closing our eyes to that.” – Tanja Jadnanansing

Thank you for tuning in at Let’s Talk RESCALED!

This episode is part of the INSPIRE project, funded by Erasmus+. Through the INSPIRE project, Restorative Justice Nederland aims to refine the concept of a restorative city by identifying key principles, such as dialogue, community involvement, democracy and horizontal relationships, and urban design. In addition, the role of small-scale detention within a restorative city is explored. 

Introducing RESCALED: A Movement for Justice Reform

RESCALED team leading the European movement for justice reform through small-scale, community-based detention houses

Welcome to Let’s Talk RESCALED, the podcast where we dive deep into the heart of justice reform. Hosted by Noa Shoshan and brought to you by RESCALED, a European Movement dedicated to reshaping our approach to incarceration.

In this first episode, you’ll learn more about the RESCALED movement—its mission, values, and vision for a justice system that fosters dignity, safety, and inclusion. Learn about the core principles of detention houses: small-scale, differentiation, and community integration, and why they are essential to creating a more humane and effective approach to liberty deprivation.

Discover the origins of RESCALED, its rapid growth across 17 countries, and the systemic change we advocate. Explore how detention houses strengthen the social fabric, address systemic inequities, and foster reintegration into society.

This episode sets the foundation for a series of thought-provoking discussions with policymakers, practitioners, and advocates who are driving transformative change in justice systems across Europe and beyond. Tune in to learn how we can reshape justice together.

RESCALED from an International Human Rights Law perspective

Graduated with a Master’s degree in International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law (IHRL), my first encounter with prisons’ issues were mostly through a legal prism. My first experience with the detention environment took place during an internship in a human rights organisation in Lomé (Togo). Here, I carried out monitoring activities in detention with the aim of submitting an alternative report to the United Nations human rights bodies on the issues of the carceral system in the country. Afterwards, I continued to study the provisions of the IHRL regarding detention through my academic and professional experiences.

Currently I am working as assistant coordinator of RESCALED in France. In this respect, taking my background knowledge into account, it is interesting to question in what way RESCALED is relevant from an IHRL point of view.

1. Prisons and human rights: Key principles of the IHRL

First, I will recall the main principles of the IHRL regarding detention.

Some International and Regional Human Rights norms are specifically focused on the treatment of incarcerated persons and others include references to this. Although deprivation of liberty is allowed under the IHRL, it must be carried out in a humane and dignity-respecting manner.[1] Persons deprived of their liberty continue to have their fundamental rights, without other restrictions than those inherent to detention.[2] Consequently, incarcerated persons may not be subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment. The European Court of Human Rights, like other human rights bodies, has qualified the conditions of detention as inhumane and degrading in several cases.[3] This qualification is based on the size of the individual space, access to walks and activities, privacy, access to natural light, ventilation and hygiene, amongst other things.[4] In addition, other rights that are guaranteed by international texts, such as the right to privacy and family,[5] freedom of religion,[6] the right to vote,[7] the right to health,[8] etc. also apply to incarcerated persons.

2. RESCALED in the light of the IHRL: Pillars in compliance with human rights

The majority of prison systems face problems, such as overcrowding, characteristics of facilities and difficulties in accessing care and activities, that prevent prisons from meeting these IHRL standards.

By proposing a new model for places of deprivation of liberty, RESCALED offers an alternative that can be compliant with the requirements of the IHRL: replacing the current large prison institutions by small-scale, community-integrated and differentiated detention houses.

2.1 Small-scale – Normalization

First of all, with the principle of a small-scale house instead of a large prison institution, RESCALED aims to normalize the conditions of detention, i.e. to create a place of deprivation of liberty in which the conditions of life resemble as closely as possible those of life in freedom.[9] Normalizing detention conditions is in accordance with international principles on detention. The European Prison Rules state that “life in prison shall approximate as closely as possible the positive aspects of life in the community“,[10] and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (hereafter referred to as the Nelson Mandela Rules) state that “the prison regime should seek to minimize any differences between prison life and life at liberty“.[11]

2.2 Community integration

Second, the detention house should be community-integrated, which creates a dynamic interaction between the detention house and the community and thus facilitates the reintegration into society. This is in line with international texts which indicate that the treatment of persons should aim primarily at the reintegration,[12] reformation and social rehabilitation of incarcerated persons.[13] In particular by “establish[ing] in them the will to lead law-abiding and self-supporting lives after their release and to fit them to do so [and] encourag[ing] their self-respect and develop their sense of responsibility”.[14]

The community integration of detention houses, that RESCALED proposes, echoes international provisions. These state that prisons should encourage incarcerated persons to establish or strengthen relationships with external persons and organisations that can assist their reintegration and that “co-operation with outside social services and as far as possible the involvement of civil society in prison life shall be encouraged”. More specifically, prison systems are encouraged to strengthen or establish links with public health services to enable continuity of care and access to the same standard of care. By giving incarcerated persons a role in the community and having them interact with the community, RESCALED adheres to these principles of international law and even seeks to go further.

2.3 Differentiation

By differentiation of detention houses RESCALED aims to place incarcerated persons in the best context according to their needs. Namely providing the right security level and offering services, activities and programs that fit the needs of the residents.

The Nelson Mandela Rules provide that incarcerated persons should be placed in groups to ensure that they are treated according to their abilities and needs with a view to their social reintegration.[15] Detention houses, given their small scale and the differentiation of the programmes they offer, therefore make it possible to meet these requirements in a comprehensive manner.

Differentiation, according to the security level and the introduction of dynamic security, also meets the requirements of the Nelson Mandela Rules, which state that detention facilities should not provide the same level of security for all incarcerated persons and should have varying degrees of security according to the needs of different groups.[16] By offering a level of security that is appropriate to the risks posed by individuals, detention houses seek to balance security, humane treatment and preparation for release and therefore propose to implement the principles set out in the above rules.

3. The IHRL to change the detention framework?

In conclusion, RESCALED, through the three pillars of a detention house, suggests a model that seems to meet the requirements of the IHRL and seems to be likely providing solutions to the violations of fundamental rights witnessed in detention today.

Furthermore, the inscription of RESCALED in these legal principles could lead to thinking of the IHRL as a means to change the framework of penitentiary systems. While international law can be seen as relatively indeterminate and allowing interpretations of norms and concepts,[17] it is still marked by balances of power in favour of the interests of some actors over others.[18] It is therefore possible to question whether IHRL has the potential to be a means of changing the framework of penitentiary systems or whether it is rather a tool to identify and respond to problems without changing this framework.

In this respect, it seems interesting to broaden the reflections on detention, on its being, functions, place in society, etc. Because of the interdisciplinary approach of RESCALED, we question those aspects and shine a new light on detention.


[1] See for example: Article 10 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

[2] See for example: Human Rights Council, resolution 24/12, 26 September 2013. European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Campbell and Fell v. UK, n°7819/77 and 7878/77, 1984.

[3] See for example: ECHR, J.M.B. and others v. France, n°9671/15 and others, 2020. Human Rights Committee, Brown v. Jamaica, 775/1997, § 6.13.

[4] See for example: ECHR, Muršić v. Croatia, n°7334/13, 2016. ECHR, Cucolas v. Roumania, n°17044/03, 2011.

[5] Article 8, European Convention on Human Rights. Article 17, ICCPR.

[6] Article 9, ECHR. Article 18, ICCPR.

[7] Article 3, 1st Additional Protocol to the ECHR. Article 25, ICCPR.

[8] Article 12, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

[9] Dan Kaminski, “Droits des détenus, normalisation et moindre éligibilité”, Criminologie, vol 43, n°1, spring-summer 2010.

[10] Rule 5, European Prison Rules.

[11] Rule 5.1, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners

[12] Rule 4.1, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners

[13] Article 10.3, ICCPR

[14] Rule 91, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners

[15] Rule 93 and 94, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners

[16] Rule 89.2, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners

[17]  Martti Koskenniemi, “From Apology to Utopia – The structure of international legal argument”, Epilogue, 2005

[18] Rémi Bachand, “Les quatres strates du droit international analysées du point de vue des subalternes”, Revue Québécoise du droit international, 2011.

CYCLES OF A CIVILIZED SOCIETY

Cycles can be discerned in a person’s life; day and night, winter, spring, summer, autumn. There are also cycles to unravel in society. In 1922 Clara Wichmann was 36 years old and was mainly concerned with changing criminal law. She advocated not detaining people in prisons. One hundred years later, I’m 36 years old and I work for the movement RESCALED that works to replace small-scale detention centers with large prisons. There is exactly a century between us. But when I read her text, it doesn’t feel that way.

The realization that, on the basis of Clara Wichmann’s ideas, we have not succeeded in stopping the construction of large prisons in the hundred years between us, makes me humble. She laid an important criminological foundation with her ideas, both in an ideological sense and in a scientific sense. Yet a hundred years later we see the same patterns: of class society, of the rhetoric of retaliation, and of reducing crime to an act of the individual rather than the result of the organization of society. I therefore do not have the illusion that a radical change in our criminal justice system will take place soon. I do wish, as a society, to treat each other in a more civilized way. And that can be thought through in the legal system by thinking from a circular justice perspective.

Civilization Process

Circular justice is a plea for the moral development of society. The legal system should not be intended to establish an individual morality of guilt, but should be an in-between space that is primarily aimed at balancing and, where necessary, restoring the network of political, social and cultural relations through connecting past, present and the future.

Everyone agrees that a person exhibits morally culpable behavior to a greater or lesser extent. But what about acting in and from society? When do we speak of a more or less civilized society? An individual has the responsibility and obligation to justify his behavior. Shouldn’t that also apply to systems we’ve created together? There is too often a gap when it comes to taking responsibility when things go wrong. While the power of moral development lies precisely in the rejection of social habits that are harmful to fellow human beings.

This is how I remember a visit, long ago, to a former prison in Rome. In the Middle Ages, people were imprisoned in a dungeon in too small a space with too many people. The guide said that people had to sleep sitting down because otherwise they would drown in the low water in which they were forced to live. When we look back on this, we find it morally reprehensible. In two hundred years, the writer Arnon Grunberg wrote a few years ago in a footnote to the Volkskrant, we will find our criminal justice system barbaric.

The civilizing process is continuously going on in a business cycle. However, as far as I’m concerned, certain outdated systems, such as prison, may finally be gaining momentum for real change. Let’s take the next step and decide not to put people in large prisons anymore. Let’s recognize our social responsibility in the creation of crime. The result is that we no longer punish people, but that actions have consequences. Consequences for individuals as well as for us as a society. And yes, there may be differences in the way we express these consequences. The concept of circular justice offers plenty of scope for this.

By Veronique Aicha, March 18, 2022

Link naar Nederlandse versie

A SOLUTION FOR INCARCERATED PEOPLE

https://unsplash.com/photos/WWX2bPqP-z4

Belgium continues to build large-scale prisons that are based on a 19th century model. These new prisons are larger than ever. While Belgium used to be a pioneer and an example of a constitutional state that protects its citizens, it now lags behind with a prison system that does not do justice, neither to the incarcerated people, nor to the victims and taxpayers. I am an incarcerated person and I read that each year millions of euros are spent on prisons. Yet, in my opinion, this system has no purpose and disregards people’s needs. It reduces human beings to mere numbers and is therefore not fit for today’s society.

In today’s society, gender identities are a ‘hot topic’ and heavily discussed. People are not born as boys or girls but they are considered boys or girls, and people who identify themselves differently should still be tolerated and accepted in this society. Sometimes I think: I am not born as a criminal but I am considered as one. What if I were considered a boy who did not receive enough attention? In prison, I have become a citizen that does not fit so easily into society, and yet, I will soon return to society. Instead of preparing this return, a prison tends to push incarcerated people, and often also their partners and children, towards social exclusion and economic poverty.

In the meantime, alarming situations are happening within these prison walls. I am surprised to see that proper support is lacking in a prison facility in which people, like myself, are serving long sentences. Support for addiction to medication or drugs, for instance, is necessary. When people with additions enter prison, they drown even more in their problems and their debts keep building up. People who are caught with drugs are not supervised and supported. They are on their own. What does exist, however, is a repressive approach: being transferred from an open section to a closed one, or put into isolation. This is no solution. It is sad that the facility itself is failing to provide the necessary tools. In search of solutions, different departments and governments are mainly pointing and looking to one another, without offering help.

In sum, we may ask ourselves if this outdated mentality is still justifiable? Is it acceptable to continue to financially invest in a state facility that does not offer solutions? Let us innovate and rethink the goals of detention. Let us be ground-breaking and keep up with the present and the future and invest in detention houses. In such houses, people are not restricted in their personal growth. This is crucial because such fundamental restrictions take everything away from people, who are then left with nothing when they return to society. In such houses, incarcerated people gain a new sense of responsibility and a close connection with society. This is lacking in today’s prisons.

HIGH-SECURITY INCARCERATION WITHIN THE PRINCIPLES OF RESCALED: Learning from a good, Norwegian practice

From 11/10 to 14/10 me and other members of APAC went to Norway, Oslo. We were introduced to the organization ‘Wayback’ and the Norwegian prison system.

1. RESCALED AND DETENTION HOUSES

Wayback and APAC Portugal are both founding partners of the European movement ‘RESCALED’. RESCALED stands for small-scale, community-integrated and differentiated detention houses instead of the classic panopticon-model prisons we are used to. The goal is to offer every incarcerated person a place in a detention house, allowing the current prison system to be replaced. Therefore, it’s important for the detention houses to be ‘differentiated’, which means that all kinds of penalties and levels of security shall be considered.

Whenever the idea of detention houses is proclaimed, the same question pops up: “How can you organize community-integrated detention houses for individuals who committed serious crimes and therefore require a high level of security?. That is why we will be addressing here, in more detail, the connection between high-security incarceration and community integration.

2. EIDSBERG PRISON: DO HIGH-SECURITY AND COMMUNITY INTEGRATION GO HAND IN HAND?

During our stay in Norway, we had the chance to observe a good example of community integration within a high security regime. We went to ‘Indre Østfold Fengsel – Eidsberg Unit’, a high-security prison where different prison sentences of various categories are carried out, regarding different categories of crimes.

The focus on community integration can be perceived in the chances that incarcerated people are given to participate in community life. Here, community life should be viewed broadly: both in- and outside the prison.

2.1 COMMUNITY LIFE INSIDE

Firstly, community integration is fostered by the way the living environment is organized inside the prison. Each floor is composed of four different wings, with a capacity for twelve persons each. Although isolation still occurs – since each person has an individual cell – the truth is that each wing is also equipped with a shared living room and kitchen where people can spend time and socialize, within a restricted and closer community. This strengthens community life of incarcerated men among themselves.

2.2 COMMUNITY LIFE OUTSIDE

Regarding the link to the community outside, at the entrance of the Østfold prison in Eidsberg there is a shop where wooden products, produced by incarcerated men, are sold. In the shop, you can find tiny wooden houses that can serve as boxes for playrooms, garden benches, hen houses, bird boards, garbage or mailbox racks, hunting towers and so on (Indre Østfold Fengsel, 2021).

Furthermore, we visited a studio inside prison where ‘Røverradion’ – Norway’s only radio show made by incarcerated people within the walls of Norwegian prisons – is recorded. They talk about how it really feels to be in prison and how forms of exclusion occur (NRK Radio, 2021, 26 October). On Friday 15/10/21 they even organized an edition ‘Røver Pride’, to create awareness about LGBTQ+ people and their extra vulnerability to exclusion and discrimination (NRK Radio, 2021, 26 October). From the inside, they make a connection with the outside by inviting and interviewing Norwegian celebrities – including politicians – and by sharing messages with the broader society. This radio show is broadcasted both inside and outside Norwegian prisons.

2.3 COMMUNITY LIFE IN- AND OUTSIDE

Last, but not least, it’s important to mention the relationship between the staff and the incarcerated men. This community life can be considered both internal and external since the relationship is established within the prison walls, but the prison staff is actually composed of people who go outside after their shift in prison.

This type of relationship is also described as ‘dynamic security’, a term that includes a working method by which the prison staff prioritizes everyday communication and interaction with incarcerated people (European Union, 2018).

How is this theoretical term put into practice? For example, we participated in a reflection group, facilitated by a mentor of Wayback, with incarcerated people inside the Eidsberg prison. During the workshop, where lots of emotions were shared, a member of the prison staff was not only attending, but also participating. Here, it’s agreed that everything that becomes part of the circle stays inside the circle. This way of dealing with each other creates confidentiality between the incarcerated men and the prison staff. On top of that, the boundaries of power and subordination are faded and replaced by a trustworthy relationship.

3. EVEN BROADER THAN COMMUNITY INTEGRATION

The Eidsberg prison has good initiatives, not only regarding community integration, but also regarding another fundamental principle of RESCALED: normalization, according to which life in prison should approximate as closely as possible the positive aspects of life outside. For instance, every incarcerated man is given a card, that has a certain amount of money provided by the State and also, in some cases, by family members. With this card, they can go to a convenience store inside the prison, to buy, for example, ingredients to cook a meal themselves, but also clothes, toiletries and ice creams.

This practice of normalization, in turn, contributes to the sense of touch with life outside.

4. WE ARE NOT THERE YET

This blogpost does not intend to praise the Eidsberg prison as a perfect model, because it is still not small-scale, nor community-integrated enough. The prison institution is still occupied with approximately 100 incarcerated men (Angelis, Giertsen, Tostrup, & Memarianpour, 2020) and located on a busy road, far away from a built-up area.

On the other hand, this prison is an example to demonstrate that high-security incarceration can be organized in a way that most people thought was not possible: creating shared spaces to develop social skills; engaging with the local communities through selling products made in prison; sharing feelings about incarceration with society through a radio show; promoting the engagement of the prison staff in activities with incarcerated men, to develop relationships of trust.

So you see, there are plenty of options to make the connection with community, even for incarceration that requires a high level of security.

REFERENCES

Angelis, S., Giertsen, H., Tostrup, E., & Memarianpour, Z. (2020). Statistics. Six Norwegian Prisons. Consulted on 26 October 2021, from https://www.sixnorwegianprisons.com/statistics

Bundo, K. (2018, 6 September). Brick and building [Photo]. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/q_E_ME5kRp4

European Union (2018). EU-funded project on dynamic security.

Indre Østfold fengsel (2021). Nytt og brukt annonser: FINN Torget. FINN.no. Consulted on 26 October 2021, from https://www.finn.no/butikk/indreostfoldfengsel?sort=RELEVANCE

NRK Radio (2021, 26 October). Røverradion. Consulted on 26 October 2021, from https://radio.nrk.no/serie/roeverradioen