Prison overcrowding and alternatives to detention: Spain (original) (raw)
Related papers
Crime Policy, Sanctioning Practice and Their Impact on Prison Population RATES1
2010
Spain has suffered a big increase of imprisonment between 1980 and 2006, passing from an average prison population of 17,000 prisoners in 1980 to 63,000 in 2006, meaning a growth of 266% in average prison population in 26 years. In order to explore the reasons for this increase in prison population, this paper proposes that is useful to distinguish two main periods: a) 1980-1994 (increase in prison population, followed by stability between 1995 and 2000, and b) 2001-2006 (a second increase in prison population). During these two periods, the growth of incarceration rates is higher in the first period (12% average increase per year) than in the second (6% average increase per year). More recent trends seem to announce an even more pronounced escalation of imprisonment in the foreseeable future. Authors proposes that the two trends that in Spain contribute to the enlargement of the prison incarceration rates, the larger time served by prisoners and the criminalization of new phenomena...
The Legal System is a Criminal, Lock It Up: A Call for Legal Reforms of the Penal Code
The legal system in society is created to treat societies from crime. However, punishments in the world's legal system are arbitrary. The number of years of imprisonment for different crimes, according to legislation, is absolutely arbitrary and not based on any sort of scientific evidence that the so-called criminal is cured to become a productive part of society through the enforcement of the penal codes.
Penitentiary System: Criticism of Legislative Drafting Technique at Three Levels
International journal of criminology and sociological theory, 2010
Both the organization of the penitentiary system-as structured within the legislative framework-and its practical implementation reflect society's representations of crime as well as perceptions of its prevention and combat. This work study will focus upon the Greek penitentiary system based on the prison officers' views and perceptions. The sample of the present research consists of 37 guards serving in Greek penitentiary institutions. The findings of the research indicate the managerial quality of the reforms attempted in the country during the last two decades. The major problems of the penitentiary system are the following: insufficient organizational infrastructure, overcrowding of prisons, weaknesses in administrative organization and inefficient care system. Additionally, the education and training of prison officers is insufficient. State policies should aim at developing actions which will take into account both empirical data and scientific findings. Penitentiary Policy Within the frame of a community's "responsive" procedures to crime and deviation, policy against crime also includes the legislative technique of prevention (Georgoulas 2003: 34). In the context of penitentiary policy, prevention is organized in two institutional stages concerning, firstly the social compliance of the prisoner-i.e. transformation of his antisocial behaviour by means of special measures "conforming to the rule of law"-and secondly the implementation of social policy measures to achieve prisoners' social rehabilitation. In Greece, apart from the penitentiary establishments, the first stage also includes bodies conducting penitentiary policy, such as the Central Scientific Prison Council, the Central Council for Prisoners Transfer and the local Prison Council, which make up forms of official 2776/1999). Prison officers are the executive representatives of the Criminal Justice system. Within this context, special measures are implemented aiming, in the first place, at tracing the social determinants responsible for the prisoners' deviant or criminal behaviour (in contrast to former penitentiary policies, which mainly in the cases of physical or mental disorders followed "the cause and effect" pattern considering individual pathology to be the endogenous cause 3 of crime.) In the second place, correctional intervention is carried out, so
Prison sentences: last resort or the default sanction?
Psychology, Crime & Law, 2018
This paper discusses the sentencing purposes for penal penalties, judges' perceptions of sentencing purposes and prison sentences, and the effects of penal sanctions. We examine judges' positions towards different penalties, with a focus on imprisonment, since their views on the different penalties are related to their sentencing decision-making. Understanding these views is then critical for several practical and political purposes, including bridging the gap between academic discourse and legal practice. We accessed judges' views on penal sanctions through a questionnaire and an interview. Our sample is compounded by the judges of the criminal courts from the three major cities in Portugal. Despite the most recent criminological empirical knowledge, judges valued imprisonment as the most adequate sentence, both for different crimes and for different judicial purposes. This result is not consistent with viewing imprisonment as a 'last resort' solution. Indeed, we did not find this 'last resort' position in our data, and it is not apparent in the judicial statistics on imprisonment rates. Our data highlight the importance of increasing judges' training on criminological and sociological issues as well as the importance of changing the influence of their personal beliefs regarding penal sanctions into research-based positions.
Modern penal rationality left behind. A call for innovative thinking and practice in criminal law
One of the main challenges for the development of law is the crystallisation of certain ideas conceming crime and punishment that have been acting as huge barriers to innovation. This think piece is, therefore, an effort to organise the results of my previous and ongoing research around the resistance surrounding innovative ideas that can be considered better equipped to deal with the complexity of contemporary social problems. To accomplish.this goal, this piece will present a simplified sketch of these ideas conceming crime and punishment-the concept of 'modem penal rationality' as developed' by Alv-aro Pires (Ottawa University). It will also briefly introduce two problematic manifestations of the high leve1 of sedimentation of these ideas: the widespread use of minimum punishments in national legal systems and the lack of space for restorative justice medhanisms in the international-legal order.
Oxford Handbooks Online, 2014
This article provides an overview of the literature leading comparative penological research. Starting from the concept of "punitiveness" as measured in imprisonment rates, it explores and critically assesses how differences in prison populations, and changes over time, have been explained by comparative criminologists. In doing so, it identifies drivers of contemporary penal policies on a global, national, and regional scale. It does, however, also pay particular attention to anomalies, deviating patterns, and overrepresented groups and discusses the validity of the explanatory models in this respect. Finally, it looks at the future of penal policy and prospects for penal reform.
The Impact of Criminal Justice Administration on the Penal Sanction
Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 1992
One of the central philosophies underlying the Report of the Royal Commission into NSW Prisons is revealed in the widely quoted aphorism, "A person is sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment". 1 The conditions under which prisoners are contained feature crucially in assessing both the perceptions and reality of prison as a punishment.2 Expectations for the experience of imprisonment vary enormously. 3 These expectations in many particular forms have been used to justify the expansion and diversification of the penal sanction. In their most modest representation, however, it is hoped that "by treating all prisoners humanely in a manner befitting their human dignity ... prisoners will at least leave prison no worse than when they entered it". 4 * 1 2 3 4