Imprisonment and internment: Comparing penal facilities North and South

Recent references to the ‘warehouse prison’ in the United States and the prisión-depósito in Latin America seem to indicate that penal confinement in the western hemisphere has converged on a similar model. However, this article suggests otherwise. It contrasts penal facilities in North America and Latin America in terms of six interrelated aspects: regimentation; surveillance; isolation; supervision; accountability; and formalization. Quantitatively, control in North American penal facilities is assiduous (unceasing, persistent and intrusive), while in Latin America it is perfunctory (sporadic, indifferent and cursory). Qualitatively, North American penal facilities produce imprisonment (which enacts penal intervention through confinement), while in Latin America they produce internment (which enacts penal intervention through release). Closely entwined with this qualitative difference are distinct practices of judicial involvement in sentencing and penal supervision. Those practices, and the cultural and political factors that underpin them, represent an interesting starting point for the explanation of the contrasting nature of imprisonment and internment

HIV and incarceration: prisons and detention

The high prevalence of HIV infection among prisoners and pre-trial detainees, combined with overcrowding and sub-standard living conditions sometimes amounting to inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of international law, make prisons and other detention centres a high risk environment for the transmission of HIV. Ultimately, this contributes to HIV epidemics in the communities to which prisoners return upon their release

Limited access to HIV prevention in French prisons (ANRS PRI2DE): implications for public health and drug policy

International audienceABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Overpopulation, poor hygiene and disease prevention conditions in prisons are major structural determinants of increased infectious risk within prison settings but evidence-based national and WHO guidelines provide clear indications on how to reduce this risk. We sought to estimate the level of infectious risk by measuring how French prisons adhere to national and WHO guidelines. METHODS: A nationwide survey targeting the heads of medical (all French prisons) and psychiatric (26 French prisons) units was conducted using a postal questionnaire and a phone interview mainly focusing on access to prevention interventions, i.e. bleach, opioid substitution treatment (OST), HBV vaccination and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for French prisoners. Two scores were built reflecting adherence to national and WHO international guidelines, ranging from 0 (no adherence) to 10 (maximum adherence) and 0 to 9 respectively. RESULTS: A majority (N=113 (66%)) of the 171 prisons answered the questionnaires, representing 74% coverage (46,786 prisoners) of the French prison population: 108 were medical units and 12 were psychiatric units. Inmate access to prevention was poor. The median[IQR] score measuring adherence to national guidelines was quite low (4.5[2.5; 5.5]) but adherence to WHO guidelines was even lower 2.5[1.5; 3.5]; PEP was absent despite reported risky practices. Unsuitable OST delivery practices were frequently observed. CONCLUSIONS: A wide gap exists between HIV prevention policies and their application in prisons. Similar assessments in other countries may be needed to guide a global policy reform in prison settings. Adequate funding together with innovative interventions able to remove structural and ideological barriers to HIV prevention are now needed to motivate those in charge of prison health, to improve their working environment and to relieve French prisoners from their currently debilitating conditions

Circles of Support & Accountability: A National Replication of Outcome Findings

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY More than 12 years ago, a group of concerned citizens formed a community-based support group for a recently-released, high-risk sexual offender. This community action was later formalized as Circles of Support & Accountability (COSA), a project stewarded by the Mennonite Central Committee of Ontario and sponsored in part by the Correctional Service of Canada. The original pilot project in South-Central Ontario has since assisted more than 100 such offenders-most of whom were released to media attention and community apprehension. Projects based on this model are now in place in the United Kingdom and several states in the USA. Projects are also underway in all Canadian provinces. Initial research into the South-Central Ontario COSA project showed that participation by ex-offenders in the pilot project reduced sexual recidivism by 70% or more in comparison to both matched controls and actuarial norms. The current study consisted of a national examination of the impact of COSA on recidivism. A group of 47 high risk sexual offenders involved in COSA across Canada after having been released at the end of their sentence were matched to a group of 47 high risk sexual offenders who were released at the end of their sentence, but who were not involved in COSA. Offenders were matched on risk, length of time in the community, release date and location, and prior involvement in sexual offender specific treatment. The average follow-up time was 2.8 years (34 months). For the purpose of the study, recidivism was defined as having a new charge or conviction for a new offense or for having breached a condition imposed by the Court. Recidivism information was obtained from CPIC records (Canadian Police Information Centre, a national database of offense histories which indicates whether a charge has been laid or a conviction registered). Results show that the offenders who participated in COSA had significantly lower rates of any type of reoffending than did the matched comparison offenders who did not participate in COSA. Specifically, offenders who participated in COSA had an 83% reduction in sexual recidivism in contrast to the matched comparison group (2.1% vs. 12.8%), a 73% reduction in all types of violent recidivism (including sexual -8.5% vs. 31.9%), and an overall reduction of 72% in all types of recidivism (including violent and sexual -10.6% vs. 38.3%). Overall, COSA participants were responsible for considerably less sexual, violent, and general offending in comparison to the matched comparison group. These findings suggest that the impact of participation in COSA is not site-specific. In addition, these results provide further evidence for the position that community volunteers, with appropriate training and guidance, can and do assist in markedly improving offenders' successful reintegration into the community. -i- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to than