Prolonged isolation of prisoners

Ko so v 18. stoletju »izumili« kazen samice, je ta v trenutku postala izjemno popularna. Njene nepravilnosti in grozljive posledice njene množične uporabe so se začele kazati dokaj hitro, vendar je moralo kljub temu preteči kar nekaj časa, preden so njeno uporabo v praksi pričeli zares opuščati. Podobno je tudi danes, ko o škodljivih posledicah tega ukrepa ni več dvoma, vendar se ga kljub temu poslužujemo v ne tako zelo majhnem obsegu. Na prvi pogled se zdi, da je obsežna pravna ureditev področja dolgotrajnih osamitev, še posebej na evropskih tleh, dovolj veliko varovalo, ki zagotavlja, da bi bila uporaba stroge izolacije vedno upravičena in pravična ter izvedena v poštenih okoliščinah, ki spoštujejo najosnovnejše človekove pravice. Ko se v omenjeno problematiko poglobimo, vidimo, da temu ni vedno tako in da bi morala biti odločitev o tako hudem posegu v življenje posameznika nedvomno podvržena nadzoru, ki naj bo nepristranski in neodvisen, po možnosti sodni presoji, nikakor pa ne zgolj samovolji posameznih direktorjev zavodov. V Združenih državah Amerike je situacija nedvomno najslabša, vendar tudi v Evropi nemalokrat prihaja do nepravilnosti in zlorab pri uporabi disciplinskih ukrepov osamitve. Okolje, v katerem je posameznik prisiljen, da dni neprostovoljno preživlja v strogi izolaciji, brez normalnih socialnih stikov ter brez ustrezne stimulacije iz okolja, ustvarja veliko tveganje za resne psihološke posledice. Tako stroga oblika kaznovanja je v določenih primerih morda res nepogrešljiva, a kaj ko ponavadi ni uporabljena kot zadnja možnost, ko so vse druge že izčrpane. Posebej problematično je, ker je kazen samice, z vso deprivacijo, ki jo prinaša, v nasprotju z enim od glavnih namenov zapora, tj. rehabilitacijo storilcev kaznivih dejanj in olajšanjem njihove reintegracije v družbo. Znano je namreč, da brezdelje in pomanjkanje dostopa do programov dodatno povečujeta antisocialne nagnjenosti zapornikov. Namesto (pre)strogega kaznovanja bi bilo torej dobrodošlo, da bi se reševanja problemov zaporskega nasilja lotili prek razvitega sistema alternativnih disciplinskih sankcij.When solitary confinement was first »invented« in the 18th century, it instantly became extremely popular. Its irregularities and the horrific consequences of its mass use began to show fairly quickly, but it still took some time before its use in practice began to cease. The situation is similar todaywe all know how harmful solitary is, and yet we still use it on a not so small scale. At first glance, the extensive regulation of long-term isolation, especially on European ground, seems to be a sufficient safeguard to ensure that the use of strict isolation is always justified and fair and carried out in appropriate circumstances that respect the most basic human rights. When we delve into the issue, it becomes clear that this is not always the case and that the decision on such a serious interference in the life of an individual should undoubtedly be subjected to scrutiny, which should be impartial and independent, possibly judical, not just arbitrariness of individual directors of institutions. The situation is undoubtedly the worst in the United States, although irregularities and abuses are often present in the use of solitary confinement in Europe too. An environment in which an individual is forced to spend days involuntarily in strict isolation, without normal social contact and without proper stimulation from the environment, creates a high risk of serious psychological damage. Such a severe form of punishment may indeed be indispensable in certain cases, but what if it is not usually used as a last resort when all the others have already been exhausted. It is particularly problematic because the solitary confinement, with all the deprivation it brings, runs counter to one of the main purposes of imprisonment – rehabilitating offenders and facilitating their reintegration into society. It is well known that idleness and lack of access to programs further increase the antisocial tendencies of prisoners. Instead of (too) severe punishment, it would be welcome to tackle the problem of prison violence through a developed system of alternative disciplinary sanctions