Monitoring prisons in England and Wales: who ensures the fair treatment of prisoners?

It is difficult to say whether prison life is ‘well’ supervised by judicial and other legal authorities in England and Wales. This article explores a number of important bodies which all have a role in monitoring what goes on in prisons: HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Independent Monitoring Boards,...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Crime, law, and social change law, and social change, 2018-08, Vol.70 (1), p.57-76
1. Verfasser: Padfield, Nicola
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:It is difficult to say whether prison life is ‘well’ supervised by judicial and other legal authorities in England and Wales. This article explores a number of important bodies which all have a role in monitoring what goes on in prisons: HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Independent Monitoring Boards, the Prison and Probation Ombudsman, NGOs as well as the formal courts (including coroners’ inquests). It is particularly difficult to ensure the fair treatment of prisoners within a system which gives wide and discretionary powers to those who run prisons. The challenge is all the greater at a time when prisons are increasingly privatised, and services are subject to increasing competition. Prisons are run behind substantial walls, both solid and metaphorical. The subject is under-explored in the literature – little has been written on the effectiveness of prison monitoring, especially in the academic literature, and empirical studies are even rarer. This article seeks to question what effective monitoring might look like, questioning how ‘visible’ prisons and prisoners are to the outside world. There are many eyes looking inside the prison: but what do they see, and what are they meant to do about what they see?The article explores the variety of structures and institutions in place, and concludes that the closed world of the prison needs both complex accountability mechanisms and clearer rules if high standards are to be effectively enforced1. Before discussing the many individual mechanisms, three introductory issues are raised. First, the UK’s ‘National Preventative Mechanism’ (NPM), established under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT). We need to consider whether this has been an effective addition to (umbrella over?) the many accountability mechanisms. We return at the end to consider whether the NPM has made a useful contribution. The second preliminary issue considered before we look at individual mechanisms is the changing face of English prisons: namely, the increased use of ‘competition’ and privatization, both of prison and probation services. The third and introductory question is defining the boundaries of the ‘prison’.
ISSN:0925-4994
1573-0751
DOI:10.1007/s10611-017-9719-x