Search

Over the last 30 years, prisoners' dignity and fundamental rights have increasingly been protected by European human rights bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This protection is aimed particularly at the traditional power relations between prisoners and uniformed staff. More recently, social reintegration of prisoners has also been recognized by these European human rights standards as a fundamental element of human dignity and an equally important aim of imprisonment as retribution and deterrence. However, it is also accepted that some offenders may be too dangerous to be returned back to society. Psychiatric/psychological assessments are a major element in this decision-making. This "new penal power" receives much less attention in human rights protection. This article compares three intertwining perspectives on this issue: the European human rights perspective on dignity and social reintegration; the experiences and mental suffering of Belgian prisoners who find themselves being stuck in prison as a result of structural problems in the risk assessment and risk management practices; and the professional perspective on how professional standards and good practices based on scientific insights might alleviate some of these threats to human dignity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, the United States and England and Wales have witnessed growing re-incarceration rates. This growth is not only due to the courts sending more people to prison ('front-end sentencing'), but also due to an increasing number of revocations of early release measures, mainly following technical violations of licence conditions (so called 'back-end sentencing'). However, it is unclear whether the same phenomenon exists in other (European) countries. Therefore, we empirically studied prison recall decision-making processes in Belgium by file analysis, complemented with focus groups with the decision makers involved in the recall process of prisoners with a sentence of more than three years. We found that the recall process in Belgium is embedded in a strong narrative of 'giving chances' and that all decision makers deploy a large amount of discretion, which they use to make deliberate decisions in an attempt to facilitate parolees' reintegration process. Non-compliance with imposed conditions does not automatically lead to recall and even when a parolee is sent back to prison, recall is framed by the decision makers as a step in the reintegration process, not the end of it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]