Search results

Transgender prisoners are subject to violence of many kinds. They are tortured, beaten, sexually assaulted, raped, and denied access to qualified public health services. This is because legal and justice systems in most countries disregard the unique conditions, needs, and requirements of transgender people. Transgender prisoners around the world suffer from mental health issues and lack of continuous access to sexual health services and hormone treatment. Like most countries in Southeast Asia, and regardless of a significantly large population of transgender prisoners, Thailand still provides no standard policies on how transgender prisoners should be managed, and transgender prisoners’ experiences remain under-researched. Through an anthropological and gendered lens, this chapter theoretically and practically examines transgender prisoners’ gendered life experiences behind bars in Thailand, debates transgender prisoners’ vulnerabilities and the myths behind them, identifies challenges around gendered-housing, analyses cultural nuances of Thai (trans)gender performativity in prisons, discusses the impact of heterosexual-binary prison management, and offers real-world policy recommendations, which are urgently needed by the Thai justice and correctional system.

Following the ‘Sarkozy’ era (2007–2012), France has engaged in ‘zero-tolerance’ policies, which have brought an increasing number of people into the criminal justice system (CJS). In an already extremely impoverished CJS, these policies have led to serious financial problems and have made an already existing prison overcrowding problem worse. Consequently, the CJS has gradually opted for a McDonald (Ritzer, 2019; Robinson, 2019) type of offender processing, whether in prosecutor-led procedures (representing roughly half of all penal procedures: Ministry of Justice, 2019) or in the sentencing phase (Danet, 2013). A similar trend has been found in probation and in prisoner release (in French: ‘sentences’ management).

The prison and probation services, which merged in 1999, have since then been in a position to benefit from the 1958 French Republic Constitution, which places the executive in a dominant position and notably allows it to draft the bills presented to a rather passive legislative power (Rousseau, 2007) and even to enjoy its own set of normative powers (‘autonomous decrees’ – Hamon & Troper, 2019). By way of law reforming (2009, 2014, and 2019 laws), the prison and probation services have thus embraced the McDonaldisation ethos. Their main obsession has been to early release as many prisoners as possible in order to free space and to accommodate more sentenced people. To do so, the prison services have created a series of so-called ‘simplified’ early release procedures, where prisoners are neither prepared for nor supported through release, where they are deprived of agency and where due process and attorney advice are removed. Behind a pretend rehabilitative discourse, the executive is only interested in efficiently flushing people out of prison; not about re-entry efficacy. As Ritzer (2019) points out, McDonaldisation often leads to counter-productive or absurd consequences. In the case of early release, the stubborn reality is that one cannot bypass actually doing the rehabilitative and re-entry work. I shall additionally argue that not everything truly qualifies as an early release measure (Ostermann, 2013). Only measures which respect prisoners’ agency prepare them for their release, which support them once they are in the community, which address their socio-psychological and criminogenic needs, and which are pronounced in the context of due process and defence rights truly qualify as such. As it is, French ‘simplified’ release procedures amount to McRe-entry and mass nothingness.

The chapter “Books Open Worlds for People Behind Bars” by Gerhard Peschers gives an insight into library services in correctional facilities in Germany on different levels, ranging from local best practice examples (e.g., Berlin, Bremen, Dortmund, and Würzburg) via regional experiences – focusing on longstanding experiences in North Rhine-Westphalia, in particular the outstanding former Münster prison library which was awarded the German national Library Prize “Library of the Year 2007” – and nationwide subjects to grown internationality based on long-term integration into the library community. Fundamental issues include history and the legal basis of prison libraries as well as practical experiences on various levels of responsibility and its diverse scope of tasks, such as collection development, data processing, interior design, events, and cooperation with city libraries.

The outlook provides the state of play and the challenges regarding digitalization for the development of prison libraries.

Finally, the author’s dream of the book tree on the prison wall, which found international resonance, invites you to share the vision of dialog and tolerance across dividing walls.

Despite the volumes that have been written on America's correctional crisis – the peerless incarceration rate, disproportionate confinement of minority group members and democratically untenable policies of disenfranchisement of people with felony convictions – criminal justice policy has changed little within the past decade or more. An important voice has been left out of these correctional policy formulations – that of prisoners. This paper proposes convict labor unions as one way to address this issue. It utilizes the United States Supreme Court majority's arguments in Jones v. North Carolina to assess the feasibility of inmate labor unions in light of current federal, state and local institutional operations; and provides a very tentative outline of how a prisoners’ labor union could be structured and function – exploring the potential democratic ramifications of such unions for corrections and in broader social policy.

Supermaxes across the United States detain thousands in long-term solitary confinement, under conditions of extreme sensory deprivation. Almost every state built a supermax between the late 1980s and the late 1990s. This chapter examines the role of federal prisoners’ rights litigation in the 1960s and 1970s in shaping the prisons, especially supermaxes, built in the 1980s and 1990s in the United States. This chapter uses a systematic analysis of federal court case law, as well as archival research and oral history interviews with key informants, including lawyers, experts, and correctional administrators, to explore the relationship between federal court litigation and prison building and designing. This chapter argues that federal conditions of confinement litigation in the 1960s and 1970s (1) had a direct role in shaping the supermax institutions built in the subsequent decades and (2) contributed to the resistance of these institutions to constitutional challenges. The history of litigation around supermaxes is an important and as-yet-unexplored aspect of the development of Eighth Amendment jurisprudence in the United States over the last half century.