Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

(English edition) Throughout the totalitarian rule of the regime of Slobodan Milošević and his henchmen, which lasted for over a decade, the country’s prisons remained shut to public scrutiny. Information about the state of human rights of the prisoners and the conditions in which they served their sentences was the exclusive privilege of the state authorities directly involved and of the individuals and institutions concerned with the matter for purposes of scientific research. The question of prisoners’ human rights was completely marginalized by war, crimes, economic hardship and daily violations of citizens’ human rights and freedoms up to 5 October 2000. For many a convict, being locked away to serve a sentence of imprisonment did not mean mere deprivation of liberty for a set period of time, but also the start of a cruel struggle for survival in the gloom of lawlessness, corruption, torture, inhuman conditions and society’s total lack of interest in his or her life behind bars. It was only after widespread prison rioting broke out in November 2000 that the public’s attention was drawn to the conditions in which the prisoners served their sentences. The prisoners put out announcements throwing light on the substandard and inhuman conditions prevailing in Serbia’s penitentiaries and prisons. During the riots, groups and individual prisoners made statements complaining that the prison conditions were far below the levels set by relevant international standards and domestic prison rules. The prisoners alleged serious violations of their physical and psychological integrity, humiliating and degrading treatment, unjust punishment and general arbitrary treatment by prison personnel. They complained of, among other things, torture by beating, lack of minimum personal hygiene facilities, absence of medical treatment and health care, and corruption among prison administrative staff. Some of the allegations and complaints were partly confirmed by competent officials of the Ministry of Justice. As a palliative for the utterly unsatisfactory prison conditions, federal and republican amnesty laws were duly introduced to be finally adopted respectively on 26 February 2001 and 13 February 2001. Nonetheless, although a number of convicts were fully amnestied and a percentage of sentences commuted, the conditions in which prisoners served their sentenced remained unchanged. In addition to the factors mentioned above, the inhuman conditions in Serbia’s prisons endured and multiplied also owing to the country’s isolation of many years, during which time no international organization other than the International Red Cross was granted access to its prisons. Domestic non-governmental organizations were also kept at arm’s length and only rarely allowed to see what went on inside. In view of the circumstances enumerated above, it was clearly necessary to introduce continuous monitoring of prisons by an independent, non-governmental institution in order to obtain a realistic picture of the prison conditions. The new government is aware that admission to the Council of Europe and to other international organizations depends in part on the conditions in which sentenced persons serve their prison sentences, as well as that the public must be informed about those conditions. So, after presenting the concept and objectives of the Prison Monitoring project, the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia was granted permission in May 2001 to visit institutions for the enforcement of criminal sanctions. This meant that for the first time in the history of this state an NGO could apply for and be granted permission to visit places of detention, custody and imprisonment without any restrictions, to interview prisoners with no personnel being present, and to talk to personnel without the presence of administration officers. Between June 2001 and October 2003, the Helsinki Committee paid a total of twenty-one visits to institutions for the enforcement of sanctions entailing the deprivation of liberty. During the period covered by this report (April 2002 to October 2003) the Helsinki Committee visited twelve institutions (one maximum-security prison, two closed prisons, three open prisons, two district prisons, one psychiatric prison, one reformatory, and one juvenile prison). In launching the project, the Helsinki Committee was principally guided by Article 64 of the European Prison Rules which states: ‘Imprisonment is by the deprivation of liberty a punishment in itself. The conditions of imprisonment and the prison regimes shall not, therefore, except as incidental to justifiable segregation or the maintenance of discipline, aggravate the suffering inherent in this.’ The Helsinki Committee hopes that its efforts to complete the project and publish this book will make a small but valuable contribution towards achieving this goal.

Law, Constitution, Jurisprudence --- Criminal Law --- Security and defense --- Evaluation research --- Penal Policy

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The drug policies of the Nordic countries have been relatively strict. Since this seems to contradict the internationally recognized liberal criminal policy in general, analyses have been devoted to try to understand this gap. Why doesn’t the “Scandinavian exceptionalism” apply to the drug policies? The new question in relation to drug policy is, however, if and how the Nordic countries will adapt to a situation when several countries all over the world are questioning ‘the war on drugs’ and orienting themselves in the direction of decriminalization and legalization. An analysis of a possible change in drug policies must be undertaken against the background of the existing policies. There are both similarities and differences between the five countries. A common feature is a stress on the demand side through both treatment and punishments directed against the user and abuser. Differences are shown in degrees of toughness in drug policies with Sweden strongest stressing a zero-tolerance stand and Denmark being the most liberal in the Nordic context. The strong welfare state ideology of all the countries is important for understanding the obstacles to a more liberal and permissive drug policy. The welfare state is an interventionist state. To not do anything about what is considered to be a problem both for the individual and the society is just not an option. In most of the countries the traditions from the temperance movements also have influenced the drug policies through the stepping-stone or gateway theory, not making a distinction between soft and hard drugs. At the same time, a number of facts and processes work in the direction of change. The drug policies of the countries have not delivered, including high numbers of drug-related deaths. The debate has opened up in just a short period of time. Many of the political youth parties demand decriminalisation of use of drugs and so have some public authorities. Human rights arguments are increasingly being put forward as a critique of police interventions. A tendency for politicians to meet the critique seems to be to separate the marginal abuser from the recreational user. The first one should be given treatment and care according to welfare state ideology. The second one, however, could be punished since the user in line with neo-liberal theory can choose and by the use contributes to the drug trade and even the killings in poor suburbs. The Nordic countries stand at a crossroads, but what new roads will be taken is far from clear.

Drug abuse and crime. --- Crime and drug abuse --- Drugs and crime --- Narcotics and crime --- Crime --- Penal policy --- Welfare state --- Nordic countries --- Zero tolerance --- Drug policy

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia (HCS) continued monitoring the prison system reforms in 2015, i.e. the reform of the institutions for the enforcement of criminal sanctions in Serbia. The project entitled "Continued monitoring of the prison system reforms" was supported by the Civil Rights Defenders. Visits to the institutions for the enforcement of criminal sanctions and offices for alternative sanctions were accomplished with the permission and support of the Ministry of Justice and the Directorate for Enforcement of Criminal Sanctions, while the visits to the detainment units were accomplished with the license and support of the presidents of higher courts with jurisdictions over the territory in which they are located. The expert team performing the monitoring of the institutions for the enforcement of criminal sanctions comprised the lawyers from the Helsinki Committee, Ljiljana Palibrk and Jelena Mirkov, full-time professor at the Faculty of Special Education and Rehabilitation Dr Zoran Ilić and a specialist of general practice medicine, Dr Aleksandra Bezarević. During the project that took part in the second half of the 2014, the Helsinki Committee team visited six institutions in the competence of the Directorate for Enforcement of Criminal Sanctions at the Ministry of Justice: five penitentiaries (in Niš, Sremska Mitrovica, Zabela, Požarevac and Valjevo) and Special Prison Hospital in Belgrade. In addition, Offices for Alternative Sanctions in these cities were also visited. The continuation of the project in 2015 encompassed visits to seven district prisons in Subotica, Kragujevac, Belgrade, Zrenjanin, Novi Sad, Smederevo and Pančevo and two visits to penitentiaries in Sombor and Padinska Skela. In 2015, the Helsinki Committee team also visited six offices for alternative sanctions in Subotica, Sombor, Kragujevac, Novi Sad, Smederevo and Pančevo.

Politics / Political Sciences --- Politics --- History --- Social Sciences --- Sociology --- Recent History (1900 till today) --- Social differentiation --- Criminology --- Health and medicine and law --- Penology --- Present Times (2010 - today) --- Penal Policy

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Since 1993, crime in the United States has fallen to historic lows, seeming to legitimize the country's mix of welfare reform and mass incarceration. The Upper Limit explains how this unusual mix came about, examining how, beginning in the 1970s, declining living standards for the poor have defined social and penal policy in the United States, making welfare more restrictive and punishment harsher. François Bonnet shows how low-wage work sets the upper limit of social and penal policy, where welfare must be less attractive than low-wage work and criminal life must be less attractive than welfare. In essence, the living standards of the lowest class of workers in a society determine the upper limit for the generosity of welfare and for the humanity of punishment in that society. The Upper Limit explores the local consequences of this punitive adjustment in East New York, a Brooklyn neighborhood where crime fell in the 1990s. Bonnet argues that no meaningful penal reform can happen unless living standards and the minimum wage rise again. Enlightening and provocative, The Upper Limit provides a comprehensive theory of the evolution of social and penal policy.

Public welfare --- History. --- East New York (New York, N.Y.) --- brooklyn neighborhood. --- comprehensive. --- contemporary punishment and society studies. --- east new york. --- enlightening. --- evolution of social and penal policy. --- higher living standards and minimum wage. --- local consequences of punitive adjustment. --- provocative. --- punishment harsher. --- welfare more restrictive. --- welfare reform and mass incarceration.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Al Capone, George "Machine Gun" Kelly, Alvin Karpis, "Dock" Barker-these were just a few of the legendary "public enemies" for whom America's first supermax prison was created. In Alcatraz: The Gangster Years, David Ward brings their stories to life, along with vivid accounts of the lives of other infamous criminals who passed through the penitentiary from 1934 to 1948. Ward, who enjoyed unprecedented access to FBI, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and Federal Parole records, conducted interviews with one hundred former Alcatraz convicts, guards, and administrators to produce this definitive history of "The Rock." Alcatraz is the only book with authoritative answers to questions that have swirled about the prison: How did prisoners cope psychologically with the harsh regime? What provoked the protests and strikes? How did security flaws lead to the sensational escape attempts? And what happened when these "habitual, incorrigible" convicts were finally released? By shining a light on the most famous prison in the world, Ward also raises timely questions about today's supermax prisons.

Prisons --- History. --- United States Penitentiary, Alcatraz Island, California. --- Alcatraz Island (Calif.) --- 20th century american crime. --- 20th century american history. --- al capone. --- alcatraz. --- alvin karpis. --- american government. --- convicts. --- crime. --- dock barker. --- escape attempts. --- fbi. --- federal bureau of prisons. --- federal government. --- federal parole records. --- gangsters. --- george kelly. --- infamous criminals. --- inmates. --- machine gun kelly. --- outlaws. --- penal policy. --- penitentiary. --- prison administrators. --- prison guards. --- prison. --- public enemy. --- resistance. --- security. --- supermax prison. --- the rock. --- worst of the worst.