In this blog post, we will examine the extent to which the rights of prisoners within correctional facilities should be protected, focusing on procedural and substantive rights and various relief systems.
Basics and characteristics of prisoners’ rights
Development of prisoners’ rights
Currently, prisoners’ rights have improved significantly thanks to the intervention of the judiciary in correctional matters, but in the early days, courts were reluctant to intervene in correctional administration. This is referred to as the “non-interference policy of the courts in correctional matters.” There are several reasons for this non-interference policy. First, correctional administration was very closed, and even the courts did not know much about correctional matters. Second, correctional administration is a field that requires special expertise, so the courts did not intervene. Third, common sense and public perception did not recognize the legitimacy of the courts taking an interest in prisoners, who are criminals. Fourth, there was a belief that judicial interference in correctional administration was contrary to the separation of powers.
However, with the expansion of civil rights and the progress of democratization, prisoners began to file lawsuits regarding their rights and interests, and the overall level of education improved, raising the awareness and knowledge of ordinary criminals. In addition, as the number of prisoners from the intellectual and leadership classes increased, prisoners became more aware of their rights and interests. As a result of these changes, the courts gradually began to intervene in correctional administration, which is referred to as “interference policy.”
Characteristics of prisoners’ rights
Historically, prisoners have not been able to fully enjoy their basic human rights. This is because the loss of certain rights was considered an important element of punishment. In addition, correctional facilities are not a priority in the distribution of national finances, making it difficult to secure sufficient budgets for prisoners. The detention of prisoners is coercive in nature, and due to the strict discipline that must be maintained in correctional facilities, prisoners are subjected to various forms of exploitation and indignity, as well as treatment that is isolated from the outside world. In such circumstances, prisoners begin to question the legality of their detention. In other words, they begin to ask whether their detention is justified and lawful.
One of the main issues for prisoners is to restore their identity and status as human beings. Although prisoners’ rights are severely restricted, most scholars emphasize the importance of retributive justice and support the protection of prisoners’ rights.
Main contents of prisoners’ rights
Procedural rights
Procedural rights are, literally, rights relating to due process, which are rules that limit and guide the actions of the state toward individuals. Excessive discretion and vague rules given to prison officers cause serious problems, and there is growing interest in the circumstances under which prisoners can exercise their procedural rights. This interest in due process provides an essential foundation for consistent rule of law in correctional facilities. While these procedural rights cannot necessarily be said to provide the highest level of protection for prisoners, they are at least seen as a direct challenge to the discretionary power of staff, which has long been considered sacrosanct in the correctional system.
Substantive rights
Substantive rights of prisoners include freedom from censorship of correspondence, freedom of religion, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and the right to treatment and the right to refuse treatment. In the case of censorship of correspondence, the right to communicate with the outside world may be a form of freedom of the press and freedom of expression, but it is restricted because it may pose security problems for correctional facilities. Although courts recognize the necessity of censoring correspondence of inmates, there is no consensus on the extent to which restrictions are reasonable.
Before recognizing freedom of religion, the primary issue is what constitutes a religion. There is also the question of the extent to which the correctional authorities should restrict the exercise of religious beliefs recognized by them. The courts have set very strict standards on religious issues, requiring the existence of a significant public interest and the use of the least restrictive alternative.
Cruel and unusual punishment is classified into cases that threaten human dignity, violate the principle of balance, or require discipline and punishment as a means to achieve the objectives of punishment. Finally, the right to be treated and the right to refuse are conflicting concepts, and therefore cannot be legally enforced.
Protection of prisoners’ rights and remedies for violations
When prisoners’ rights are violated, it is necessary to seek non-judicial remedies as an effective and fair means of redress due to the difficulty of litigation. Informal mechanisms can respond more effectively to prisoners’ complaints and grievances, and have the advantages of requiring administrative handling of administrative issues, taking less time than judicial means, and giving greater meaning to prisoners through mutual agreement.
Informal mechanisms include ombudsman systems, prisoner complaint committees, and mediation. Ombudsmen can propose alternatives to the relevant institutions, so their success depends on their impartiality and persuasiveness. Success factors include the ability of prisoners to easily file complaints, the full empowerment of ombudsmen, and respect for the solutions proposed by ombudsmen.
The inmate grievance committee requires both parties to the dispute to make sincere efforts to resolve the dispute informally before it is brought to the committee. It is important to note that the committee is not recognized as a grievance committee unless inmates participate as decision-makers on specific issues or as advisors on overall operations.
Finally, mediation is a method of dispute resolution used at many stages of the criminal justice process. In order for mediation to take place, both parties to the conflict must agree to refer the dispute to a mediator and to accept the mediator’s decision. This is a consensual and voluntary process in which a neutral third party helps the parties resolve their differences.
Assessment of the prisoners’ rights movement
Various forms of prisoner rights movements have had a profound impact on correctional systems, achieving more than just judicial intervention in correctional matters. However, the results of efforts to promote prisoner rights have not always been positive. The environment and atmosphere in correctional facilities are often most turbulent during or immediately after major litigation. In addition, the long time required for litigation can create tension and conflict between inmates and staff. Riots are also a problem that can occur when the results of rights remedies fall short of inmates’ initial expectations.
However, there are also cases where correctional facilities and correctional authorities cooperate very positively with disputes initiated by inmates. This is because it can be used as leverage on the legislature and budgetary authorities, and as an opportunity to secure the resources necessary for improving correctional facilities and correctional services.
