Problem Situation
Russia occupies first place in the world in terms of its relative number of prisoners
(720-780 per 100,000 members of the population). Maintaining an army of
one-and-a-half-million prisoners and penitentiary employees places an unbearable burden on
the federal budget. Correctional institutions do not have enough food, medication, or
clothing for the prisoners, the tuberculosis morbidity rate is 42-fold higher than among
the rest of the population, and the death rate is 17-fold higher. Even in juvenile
colonies, cases of dystrophy and death from "general physical exhaustion" have
been documented. Delays in wages and other payments to prison personnel have led to a
significant increase (three-fold in three years) in suicide among penitentiary employees
(60 cases in 1996). Cells in preliminary detention institutions (SIZO and IVS) hold 3-5-fold
more prisoners than the norm, and many cases of prisoner death have been recorded from
oxygen starvation. Due to the extremely long preliminary investigation and court time,
people who are not guilty by law (who have not been sentenced by the court) spend from six
months to several years in these inhumane conditions.
Due to the catastrophic shortage in funds, the only possible solution to this problem
is systematic reduction in the prison population (taking into account population
security). This reduction can be achieved by decreasing the inflow into the criminal
justice system (those taken into custody and sentenced to imprisonment) and increasing the
outflow from it (those released from custody, convicts whose term is reduced).
Outflow. Russian legislation envisages various judicial and non-judicial
(pardoning, amnesty) institutions, which permit early release of prisoners, reductions in
their prison term, changes in preventive measures through court appeal against the
prosecutor's warrant for arrest, etc. These institutions are not effective enough for the
following reasons:
- professional legal assistance is inaccessible to most prisoners;
- prisoners are poorly informed about how to use the opportunities offered by the law for
reducing prison terms or changing preventive measures;
- according to current practice, the administration of penitentiary institutions,
prosecutors and judges very rarely use the opportunities available for early release, or
alternative penalties.
Inflow. The current practice of making court decisions and using preventive
measures in no way coincides with the state's real potential for providing for these
decisions. Nevertheless, legislation permits much wider use of preventive measures (bale,
probation supervision, etc.) and punishments that do not involve imprisonment.
Conciliatory institutions and simplified criminal procedures are extremely rarely used,
and punishments envisaged by the new criminal code, such as restricted freedom, community
work, short-term arrests, etc. are not used at all. This is due to the fact that:
- investigators, prosecutors and judges have no information on positive models of
alternative penalties and punishments to imprisonment, or on ways to implement decisions
not forbidden by the law;
- the procedures used during the investigation of even relatively straightforward criminal
cases are complicated and unwieldy;
- there are no appropriate state services (for example, detention homes, community work
inspection agencies) or non-governmental organizations that could participate in resolving
these problems (conciliatory institutions, probation, etc.).
It should be particularly noted that politicians, investigators, prosecutors, judges
and prison employees are usually inclined to issue harsh punishments even against people
who have committed petty crimes and do not present a danger to society.
The record number of prisoners and its constant increase between 1989-95 are associated
with an entire set of socio-cultural and economic reasons which cause an increase in the
high level of crime. Here, we will discuss two of the reasons which apply to this project.
The first is the absence of a conception of public criminal policy and legislative
innovations. The crime-fighting programs developed by federal and regional state agencies
and the laws adopted by the parliament and local authorities are extremely punitive, they
are based on the strategy and techniques used during the Soviet period (harsh criminal
punishments, restriction of civil rights, unscrupulousness, excessive repression, etc.),
and do not take into account international crime-fighting experience. In addition, all
these programs and laws do not take into account the state's economic potential. All the
crime-fighting programs, SIZO construction programs,
etc., adopted between 1992-96 were not (and could not) be provided for financially. As a
result, the financing level of these programs did not exceed 10% of the planned amount.
The second reason is the high level of repetitive crimes, which is largely due to the
lack of social and rehabilitation services for helping released prisoners. There are some
institutions like this envisaged by the law, but they are unable to function due to
insufficient funds. For example, the creation of centers located outside colonies for
certain groups of prisoners (see footnote 7) are not budgeted.
However, despite certain positive changes, the state does not have any prison
population reduction programs or even a conception for this kind of program. Our Center (MCPR) has drawn up some fundamental principles for this
conception. One of the main reasons for the current situation, in our opinion, is extreme
centralization of administration of penitentiary institutions. As a result, the criminal
policy conducted by individual Russian regions does not reflect at all on the local
budget; financing of penitentiaries is conducted at the federal level. This is similar to
the situation where the residents of Minnesota had to admit that their taxes partially
went to financing the construction and maintenance of prisons in Texas, where the relative
number of prisoners is ten-fold higher. The idea of decentralizing control has long met
with dogged resistance from all the power structures. For example, in 1992, parliament
voted against the amendments we proposed to the corrective labor code, which could have
made it possible to begin the decentralization process. In particular, we proposed a legal
provision which would permit the local authorities to create their own penitentiaries
independent of the Russian Interior Ministry GUIN. Our
proposal was thoroughly substantiated. In particular, we noted that the provision was
permissive, but not mandatory, and would not cause destabilization of the situation at
detention centers. Local subordination institutions (primarily for juveniles, women and
the sick, etc.) could be built wherever local authorities considered it fit, and the
process for creating these institutions could be supported by the federal budget, etc.
Moreover, the idea of decentralization is currently finding support with several
presidential structures, regional authorities (particularly in the Kaliningrad, Nizhny
Novgorod, and Sverdlov regions, the Republic of Komi, etc.), and the heads of certain
penitentiaries. Even the GUIN leadership agrees that the
number of prisoners must be reduced.
The forces that support the idea of decentralization are in need of conceptual
provision and program drafts directed at reducing the number of prisoners in the regions.
The idea of reducing the number of prisoners should also have informational support, for
example, wide coverage in the mass media. In addition, a great deal of work remains to be
done with the legal community and even with human rights activists. For example, most
human rights activists and public figures are opposed to the idea of decentralization.
Our tasks
1. Legal education of specific social groups of the population
(prisoners, their relatives, human rights activists, penitentiary employees), informing
them of the most efficient ways to achieve early release and reduce prison terms.
2. Informing judges, prosecutors, investigators, human rights
activists, and political and public leaders about positive models for using alternative
penalties, as well as successful experience in reducing the number of prisoners in a
particular region.
3. Developing programs for reducing the number of prisoners over the
next five years.
4. Informing the population, state officials, members of the legal and
human rights community, and political leaders about the dangerous consequences of
maintaining such a huge number of prisoners, and proposals for reducing it.
Ways to resolve the tasks
1. The MCPR publishes booklets and
posters for prisoners, their relatives, and human rights activists. Each booklet or poster
gives recommendations for using specific judicial (appealing arrest in court or court
sentence, parole, etc.) and extra-judicial (appealing to the prosecutor to change
preventive measures, pardoning, amnesty, etc.) institutions. The original texts of
recommendations are clarified and corrected on the basis of experts' examinations, and
comments from prisoners themselves.
2. Increasing the efficiency of institutions capable of reducing the
prison population depends not only on legal education of the prisoners and their
relatives, but also on changes in the legal practice customary in our country. In order to
achieve this, we propose issuing information bulletins for judges, prosecutors,
investigators, and human rights activists on positive models for using alternative
penalties, successful experience with their use and the reduction in prisoners in a
particular region, and institutions using innovations envisaged by the new criminal and
criminal-executive codes (building detention homes, rehabilitation centers, etc.). The
bulletin will be issued in printed and electronic form. We also plan to form a data base
on positive models of legal practice.
3. As we have already noted, during the past two or three years,
representatives of the legal community and government officials of various Russian regions
have shared and supported the idea that it is necessary to use various institutions to
reduce the flow of criminal cases and the number of prisoners. In so doing, local power
representatives understand that they cannot implement these ideas on their own, and they
are willing to cooperate with MCPR, and other Russian and
foreign organizations.
To achieve this, a program draft will be developed for reducing the number of
prisoners. Independent experts, government officials, non-governmental activists, experts
from CIS countries and Eastern Europe who have positive experience with reducing the
number of prisoners, and western experts will be invited to develop this program.
The first version of a program draft and collection of material on the problem of
reducing the number of prisoners will be presented at an international conference. After
it is finished and streamlined, the program draft and second collection of material will
be sent to experts, relevant officials, non-governmental activists, and the mass media.
On the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
an international conference and exhibition of documents, photographs and other materials
relating to the living conditions of prisoners and the problem of reducing the prison
population will be held. The draft authors, independent experts, non-governmental
activists, and PRI experts will take part in the
conference. Public and political figures, representatives of relevant departments, and
journalists will also be invited to attend the conference. Three sets of questions will be
reviewed at the conference:
- the critical situation that has developed in the criminal justice system and
penitentiaries
- reasons for the crisis (one of the main reasons is the unmanageable number of prisoners
for Russia's economy);
- program draft for reducing the number of prisoners and other proposals for overcoming
the crisis
The exhibition should help to attract the attention of officials, the mass media and
society to the problem of reducing the prison population. The material of the exhibition,
which is to last three weeks, could later be used at other exhibitions (the Sakharov
Museum Center, parliamentary center, etc.).
The radio program "Oblaka" and other mass media
will be used to achieve the above-mentioned objectives. It should be noted that, according
to population polls, 25% of the population, not including prisoners, listen to this radio
program. The latest data from population polls refutes the myth that most of Russia's
population are in favor of harsher criminal punishments. However, most populist
politicians are guided in their activity by this very myth. Responses from those who
listen to the "Oblaka" radio program will be
distributed among deputies, lawyers, and human rights activists.
|
Problem
Situation