UNDERSTANDING DIGNITY AND SECURITY IN PRISONS Under ‘measures to combat violence and emergency situations’ the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights identifies the following preventive measures, inter alia:14 • separate the different categories of persons • • • • deprived of liberty; provide periodic and appropriate instruction and training for the personnel; increase the number of personnel in charge of internal security and surveillance, and set up continuous internal surveillance patterns; set up early warning mechanisms to prevent crises or emergencies; promote mediation and the peaceful resolution of internal conflicts. So-called ‘dynamic security’ is an approach to security, which combines positive staff-prisoner relationships with fair treatment and purposeful activities that contribute to their future reintegration into society. It encompasses actions that contribute to a professional, positive and respectful relationship between prison staff and prisoners. It requires knowledge of the prison population and an understanding of relationships between prisoners, and between prisoners and prison staff, allowing staff to anticipate problems and security risks. The approach acknowledges that the power imbalance of prison staff over prisoners may easily be perceived as provocation or punishment. Dynamic security needs to be accompanied by appropriate policies and procedures, and in particular by adequate staff recruitment and training. UN Prison Incident Management Handbook ‘Prison staff members need to understand that interacting with prisoners in a humane and equitable way enhances the security and good order of a prison. (…) Irrespective of staffing ratios, each contact between staff and prisoners reinforces the relationship between the two, which should be a positive one, based on dignity and mutual respect in how people treat each other, and in compliance with international human rights principles and due process.’15 Examples of dynamic security are found, for example, in so-called direct supervision prisons in the United States. These are organised into small, decentralised living units, with staff working in direct contact with prisoners, rather than in control rooms or towers. Comparative research has shown that without greater spending on buildings or staffing, this kind of facility reduces levels of assaults and other serious infractions, and provides settings that are less stressful and more accessible to counselling and rehabilitation programmes.16 In short, they are more likely to provide both safety and dignity. The revised Standard Minimum Rules acknowledge the concept of dynamic security, encouraging prison administrations to use, to the extent possible, conflict prevention, mediation or any other alternative dispute resolution mechanism to prevent disciplinary offences and to resolve conflicts. They also require training on security and safety, including on the concept of dynamic security, with due consideration of preventive and defusing techniques, such as negotiation and mediation.17 3. The relationship between dignity and security in detention Security and dignity in places of detention are interdependent. ‘Not only are prisons and human dignity compatible, they must be compatible’.18 Security and control are best ensured in environments that respect the inherent dignity of detainees. As the International Centre for Prison Studies pointed out, ‘[i] t is quite wrong to suggest that treating prisoners with humanity and fairness will lead to a reduction in security or control.’ In fact, fairness and legitimacy are not only critical to wellbeing in prisons, but have demonstrable effects on order.19 When detainees’ rights are respected, it is more likely that they will acknowledge the legitimacy and authority of prison staff, reducing the risk of tensions and disorder. Research in UK prisons suggests that prisoners experience order and safety along with fairness, respect and humanity as what matters most in prison life.20 At the same time, certain security practices and measures can by their nature be intrusive and restrictive, limiting the enjoyment of detainees’ rights. Security concerns may be overemphasised to the detriment of the dignity of detainees; measures taken in the name of security may be disproportionate or even excessive; the manner in which they are implemented can be brutal or oppressive and/or applied in a systematic manner without consideration of whether or not the individual poses an actual risk. 14. Principle XXIII, Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR), Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of People Deprived of Liberty in the Americas. 15. United Nations, Prison Incident Management Handbook, 2013, pp21, 22. 16. Wener R E, The effectiveness of direct supervision correctional design and management: A review of the literature, Criminal Justice and Behaviour 33, 2006, pp367-391. 17. Revised Standard Minimum Rules, Rules 38 and 76. 18. Andrew Coyle, ‘Prisons and human dignity: are they compatible?’ A paper delivered at the 6th worldwide conference of the International Prison Chaplains’ Association, Stockholm, 21 August 2010, p8. 19. Alison Liebling, ‘Moral performance, inhuman and degrading treatment and prison pain’, Punishment and Society 13, 2011, p533. 20. Ibid. Penal Reform International | Balancing security and dignity in prisons: a framework for preventive monitoring |5