Esther Montero Perez de Tudela

Abstract: espanolEl tratamiento penitenciario es un tema frecuentemente desconocido por el publico general, pues a menudo, cuando se habla de reeducacion y reinsercion en los medios de comunicacion es para poner de manifiesto su fracaso, convirtiendo asi el funcionamiento y los efectos positivos del tratamiento penitenciario en algo ignorado; la labor que realizan los profesionales del medio penitenciario en materia de reeducacion y reinsercion es muy intensa y amplia, e implica grandes esfuerzos, pues existen muchos obstaculos que vencer para implementar los programas de tratamiento en un medio como el carcelario. Asi, en este articulo, se pretende dar una vision general del tratamiento penitenciario, desde la finalidad primordial de reeducacion y reinsercion social asignada a las penas privativas de libertad hasta la amplia oferta tratamental vigente en la institucion penitenciaria, pasando por una breve exposicion sobre el concepto, dinamica de funcionamiento y obstaculos en la implementacion del tratamiento en prision EnglishPrison treatment is a topic quite unknown by the public opinion, used to receive a distorted information because when talking about reeducation and reinsertion into the media, it is to reveal its failure, thus turning the positive effects and functioning of the prison treatment into something ignored; the work done by prison professionals in the field of reeducation and reintegration is very intense and large, and involves great efforts, because there are many obstacles to overcome to implement treatment programs in a prison environment. Thus, in this article, it is intended to give an overview of prison treatment, from the primary purpose of reeducation and social reinsertion assigned to custodial sentences up to the wide range of treatments in force in the penitentiary institution, going through a brief explanation on the concept, operational dynamics and obstacles in the implementation of the prison treatment

Abstract: One critical element of interagency and international cooperation in the area of criminal justice is whether organizations – and more generally countries – can trust one another to follow through o...

Abstract: In response to the pandemic that started in early 2020, prison systems around the world have adopted various strategies to prevent the spread of Covid-19 (coronavirus disease 2019). In Spain, the m...

Abstract: espanolEl presente articulo trata de demostrar, por un lado y teniendo en cuenta la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos (TEDH) dictada hasta el momento, que la vigente regulacion espanola de la prision permanente revisable es conforme con el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos (CEDH). Asimismo, se ponen de relieve ciertas inconsistencias y contradicciones de esta doctrina jurisprudencial que resulta decepcionante e insuficiente de cara a una adecuada proteccion de la dignidad de los condenados a prision permanente. Por ultimo y a partir del analisis descrito, se intentan establecer algunas implicaciones para el vigente sistema espanol en materia de resocializacion, fines de la prision permanente despues del periodo de cumplimiento minimo, prescripcion del delito y penas de prision no susceptibles de acumulacion. EnglishThis article tries to demonstrate that, taking into account several European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgements on life sentences delivered until now, the current Spanish regulation on this matter is in accordance with the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Moreover, some inconsistencies and contradictions of this case law doctrine are shown. Such features reveal a rather disappointing and insufficient protection of lifer’s dignity on behalf of the ECtHR. Finally, and based on this analysis, an attempt is carried out in order to establish some implications for the current Spanish system regarding the statute of limitations for crimes, resocialization, purposes of permanent imprisonment beyond minimum compliance period and not cumulative prison sentences. Key words: Permanent Reviewable Imprisonment, European Court of Human Rights Case law, European Convention of Human Rights, resocialization, purposes of permanent imprisonment beyond minimum compliance period, statute of limitations for crimes not cumulative prison sentences.

Abstract: This article aims to study and analyze the set of programs that make up the landscape of Spanish prison environment. Here we will prioritize and classify programs that, with emphasis socio-educational and socio-labor,may have a greater impact on social integration or reintegration work, in contrast to the perception ofwomenwho participate in these programs. From a multi-method research methodology (538 questionnaires and 61 in-depth interviews of women prisoners throughout the country), this article discusses the categories and data used for intervention in prisons state of art,with powerful reflections for the specialized field of SocialEducation Penitentiary (ESP). The conclusions drawn in this area are based on some small successes of the prison systemas access and proliferation of software, or the presence of certain gender and socio-cultural programs. However, there remainmajor challengeswithin the recovering constitutional purposes awarded to custodial sentences, within our democratic framework. The results show a role for recreational programs with leisure and recreational focus, to the detriment of socio-educational programs focus on emancipation and freedom. Similarly, there is an overwhelming failure of the itineraries that allowsocial and labormarket participation in active employment in the period of release (perpetuating also traditional gender roles). This reality, therefore, shows that the Correctional Institution continues to exert multiple violence and exclusion toward people punished, that undermine the dignity and potential re-education and rehabilitation.

Abstract: The United States imprisons more of its people than any nation on Earth, and by a considerable margin. Criminals attract little empathy and have no political capital. Consequently, it is not surprising that, over the past forty years, there have been no concerted or unified efforts to stem the rapid increase in incarceration levels in the United States. Nevertheless, there has recently been a growing realization that even the world’s biggest economy cannot readily sustain the $80 billion annual cost of imprisoning more than two million of its citizens. No principled, wide-ranging solution has yet been advanced, however. To resolve the crisis, this Article proposes a major revolution to the prison sector that would see technology, for the first time, pervasively incorporated into the punishment of criminals and result in the closure of nearly all prisons in the United States. The alternative to prison that we propose involves the fusion of three technological systems. First, offenders would be required to wear electronic ankle bracelets that monitor their location and ensure they do not move outside of the geographical areas to which they would be confined. Second, prisoners would be compelled to wear sensors so that unlawful or suspicious activity could be monitored remotely and by computers. Third, conducted energy devices would be used remotely to immobilize prisoners who attempt to escape their areas of confinement or commit other crimes. The integrated systems described in this Article could lead to the closure of more than ninety-five percent of prisons in the United States. We demonstrate that the technological and surveillance devices can achieve all of the appropriate objectives of imprisonment, including both the imposition of proportionate punishment and also community protection. In our proposal, only offenders who have committed capital offenses or their equivalents, or who attempt to escape from technological custody would remain in conventional bricks-and-mortar prisons. As a result, our proposal would convert prisons from a major societal industry to a curious societal anomaly. If these reforms are implemented, the United States would spend a fraction of the amount currently expended on conventional prisons on a normatively superior mechanism for dealing with society’s criminals.

Abstract: This chapter provides an overview of a group of sentencing options that have been referred to as intermediate sanctions, because they offer judges, sentencing commissions, and corrections managers a middle ground between a sentence to traditional probation on the one hand, and incarceration on the other. Intermediate sanctions were rst introduced in the late 80s and early 90s as “smart sentencing” strategies(Byrne et al., 1992); and recently, the National Institute of Justice has funded a variety of community corrections initiatives under the heading “smart probation,” which ow directly from more recent reviews of the evaluation research on the implementation and impact of intermediate sanctions over the past three decades (e.g. Byrne, 2009). A variety of intermediate sanctions can be identied, including electronic monitoring programs, intensive probation supervision programs, boot camps, residential community corrections programs, split sentencing, day reporting centers, day nes, and community service (Byrne and Taxman, 2005). While national estimates on the utilization of intermediate sanctions certainly vary, it appears that a conservative estimate of the percentage of all offenders sentenced to an intermediate sanction program (front end and back end) is about 10 percent of the current community corrections population (Miofsky and Byrne, 2012).