On the So-called Good Penitentiary Practices. An Empirical Picture and Several More General Theoretical Reflections

The article discusses the issue of good penitentiary practices. It fits into the discussionabout how to work with inmates in prison, what axiological and substantive basis offersan alternative, new logic of interactions against the crisis of penitentiary resocialisation.According to the author, this discussion should be concentrated on the followingquestions: what can be achieved in prison conditions; how to work with prisoners; whatgoals should be present in penitentiary work. One of the ways of working is, therefore,good practice. The author discusses theoretical and methodological aspects of researchon good practices and defines them. He points out that what is usually referred toas a good practice is an action that has brought concrete, positive results, has somepotential for innovation, is durable, repeatable and applicable to similar conditionselsewhere or by other entities.According to the author, the sources of good penitentiary practices can be soughtin various areas of knowledge, experience and legal regulations. Most importantly, heindicates: praxeology and pragmatism, realism (with regard to what can be achievedin a total institution in given organisational, social and economic conditions), wisdomand experience of prison staff (conformism), international prison rules, penitentiarynational law and pedagogical interaction models. All these sources are discussed indetail.In the further part of the article, the results of research on good penitentiarypractices are discussed. They were carried out between January 2015 and September2016 in five largest prisons from the area of the District Inspectorate of the PrisonService in Poznań (prisons in Poznań, Gębarzewo, Krzywaniec, Rawicz andWronki). They were all of a closed type. The study covered a group of 180 convictsand 32 educators. In addition, 100 personal files were analysed for the mannerof penitentiary work described in them.Research shows that employment of convicts was the most desirable activity, es -pecially appreciated by the educators. In their opinion, referral to work organisestime, sets the rhythm and structure of the day. The work environment is also outsideof the cell. The convicts can go out, meet people from outside prison. This is especiallyvaluable in a closed-type penitentiary. Daily performance of professional duties developsa work habit, teaches responsibility, cooperation, understanding and duty.The second type of desirable interventions was organising and facilitating contactswith relatives. The third one was implementation of, and engaging convicts in, variouspenitentiary programmes. The programme offers possibilities for innovation andcan be repeated. It also provides an opportunity to use specialist preparation andinventiveness of its author (prison educator). The author of the article estimates that only the development and use of penitentiary programmes can be considereda good penitentiary practice according to the criteria given in the article. Other typesof influence pointed out by educators and convicts lie simply in the good performanceof duties by the prison staff. Therefore, they do not provide a starting point to proposesome new theoretical concept of penitentiary interactions.Commenting on these findings, the author assesses that the scientific way of defininggood practices is clearly not in line with how they are understood by prison staff.The former is determined by the criteria indicated in the article, the pragmatic realismof the other. It results from the pressure of prison conditions, and it is not enough togeneralise it to the theoretical level.Therefore, in the final part of the article the author poses the question how theobtained results can be used. In response, he states that the actions indicated by therespondents as desirable can be divided into two groups. The first one includes generalpenitent actions (e.g. differentiation of impacts on prisoners into long-term and shorttermones, intensification of interactions aimed at managing the prisoners’ free time,matching interactions according to the sentence execution’s phase), whereas the secondrefers to interactions aimed at intensifying an individual approach to pri soners (e.g. anindividualised plan of serving the sentence, better knowledge of the convicts, payingmore attention to their interests, reacting to their problems).In conclusion, the author of the article states that its findings provide the basis onlyfor formulating a catalogue of methodical, organisational and functional guidelines.He gives examples of such directives as well as the actions indicated as desirable byprison’s educators and inmates.The article ends with the remark that the catalogue of methodical guidelines isa kind of a prison penitentiary code, assuming the use of means and methods that canpotentially be implemented in prison conditions