INTRODUCTION
Introduction
When a state deprives a person of their liberty, it incurs
a duty of care to ensure that the dignity of that person is
respected. States must also ensure that prisons are safe
and secure for detainees, staff, visitors and the outside
community. These two obligations are not contradictory,
but go hand in hand, as security can be best ensured
in a well ordered and justly administered system, which
treats prisoners with humanity and fairness.1
In coercive establishments such as prisons, there is a
danger that concerns about security and order prevail
too easily over dignity and fairness. Security measures
that are excessive or conducted in a systematic way can
infringe on the dignity of detainees, for example through
unnecessary restrictions on movement, possessions or
activities, routine body searching or the disproportionate
or prolonged use of solitary confinement. While individual
security measures may not reach this threshold,
collectively they may amount to inhuman or degrading
treatment.
This risk is greater when there is political or media
pressure for tighter security and tougher responses to
crime. This trend has been observed in many countries
over the last decade including as a response to an
upsurge – or perceived upsurge – in organised crime,
social violence and the threat of terrorism related
offences.
Persons deprived of their liberty are in a situation of
power imbalance and particularly vulnerable to abuse.
In many ways security ‘trumps’ dignity, for a number of
reasons, including the following:
• security measures are sometimes increased to
compensate for a shortage of human resources;
• insufficient training can mean that staff employ
security measures that are unnecessary or
disproportionate.
Monitoring bodies, including National Preventive
Mechanisms (NPMs) designated under the Optional
Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture (OPCAT),
have an important role to play in detecting, assessing
and analysing the risks to human dignity posed by an
overemphasis on security measures.
Through their regular visits to places of detention and
interviews in private with staff and persons deprived of
their liberty, monitoring bodies can obtain first- hand
information about how security policies and practices
are impacting on the dignity of prisoners. They can
analyse whether such measures are necessary and
proportionate, and whether they are applied in a fair
and non-discriminatory way. On this basis, they can
make concrete recommendations on how to ensure
that the dignity of detainees is protected rather than
compromised by security measures.
This paper aims to assist monitoring bodies, including
National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs), by providing
them with an analytical framework to:
• understand the concepts of dignity and security in
prisons and the relationship between them;
• the assumption that persons deprived of their liberty
are dangerous or violent can lead to an over-reliance
on security measures;
• identify situations where there is a particular risk that
security in prisons is overemphasised to the detriment
of the dignity of prisoners.
• prison staff want to avoid being criticised for ‘lax
security’ and therefore may opt for more severe
security options;
1. Andrew Coyle, A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management: Handbook for Prison Staff (International Centre for Prison Studies, 2002) p58.
2 |
Penal Reform International | Balancing security and dignity in prisons: a framework for preventive monitoring