WHAT DO MONITORING BODIES NEED FOR ENGAGING IN CULTURE CHANGE? 9. Prisoners’ clothes In many countries, prisoners are required to wear a clearly identifiable uniform on the grounds that it will reduce the risk of escape or facilitate recapture, and also to facilitate identification and management of prisoners on a day-to-day basis. Colour-coding is used in many countries to differentiate pre-trial detainees and convicted prisoners, as well as different security categories or according to length of sentence or offence committed. In Merced county jail, California, uniform is used as part of a detailed scheme of classification aimed at enabling officers to keep rival gang members apart, and prisoners who have dropped their gang membership have ‘VP’ − short for Victim Potential − printed on the back of their shirts to alert them to prison officers as vulnerable.125 Critics of the policy have argued that such labelling further victimises such prisoners and may make them even more vulnerable to inter-prisoner violence. It has also been argued that colour coded uniforms for gangs may only serve to strengthen gang identity and polarise the population. Death row inmates and prisoners serving life sentences are also singled out by uniform in many countries, often not justified by security considerations. In Florida, US, for example, death row inmates wear ‘bright orange scrubs made of some hot, heavy, itchy fabric’,126 even though a flight risk is questionable in the high-security conditions of their accommodation. In Texas, US, deathsentenced inmates have ‘DR’ printed on the back of their uniforms.127 In Ukraine, the practice of identifying lifesentenced prisoners by issuing them with bright orange uniforms with the label ‘lifer’ on the back was criticised by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) as ‘stigmatising’ and ‘humiliating’.128 While such practices may be driven by considerations of security or other prison management needs, prison uniform should not be part of a punitive framework nor should it set out to humiliate the wearer, and for this reason most prison administrations have discarded the unnecessary practice of requiring prisoners to wear uniform with arrows or stripes.129 For women, particular issues arise with regard to prison clothing. For example, where women wear an all-in-one jumpsuit, they must undress down to the waist when using the toilet, leaving them exposed and in some settings in view of staff or other inmates. In France, the General Controller of Places of Deprivation of Liberty expressed concern about the practice in police stations of forcing women to remove their bras to reduce the risk of self-harm or suicide. Its report found that women could be left without their bra for 12-13 hours, even appearing before a judge without it, and were subjected to salacious remarks.130 While international standards are mostly silent on the issue of prisoner uniforms, the revised Standard Minimum Rules require that untried prisoners are allowed to wear their own clothing.131 They further require that whenever a prisoner is taken outside the prison, ‘he or she shall be allowed to wear his or her own clothing or other inconspicuous clothing’, in order to avoid humiliation in public. Detainees should not be required to wear uniform when appearing before a court or jury in order to not compromise the presumption of innocence. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture132 The […] imposition of prisoner uniforms – regardless of their design – can hardly contribute to prisoners’ self-esteem, which is an important part of their rehabilitation, and may be seen as running contrary to the normalisation principle, according to which conditions in prisons should be arranged so that they correspond, to the extent possible, to conditions outside. Monitoring bodies can enquire whether the use of prison uniforms is based on and justifiable by security considerations, and whether it is compatible with the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. 125. One might speculate whether being identified as a potential victim may only serve to increase their vulnerability, especially where separation is not well enforced. 126. Conversation with Michael L. Radelet, Professor of Sociology, University of Colorado. 127. http://www.texasobserver.org/solitary-men/ (see image) 128. Report to the Ukrainian Government on the visit to Ukraine carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 24 November to 6 December 2002, 1 December, 2004, CPT/Inf (2004) 34; and Report to the Ukrainian Government on the visit to Ukraine carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 9 to 21 October 2005, 20 June 2007, CPT/Inf (2007) 22. 129. Professor Andrew Coyle, A human rights approach to prison management, 2nd edition, p42. 130. Le Contrôleur general des lieux de privation de liberté, Rapport d’activité 2009, http://www.cglpl.fr/2010/rapport-dactivite-2009/ <accessed 27 November 2015>. 131. Revised UN Standard Minimum Rules, Rule 115. 132. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, Sweden: Visit 2009, CPT/Inf (2009) 34, Section: 28/50, 27 November 2009. Penal Reform International | Balancing security and dignity in prisons: a framework for preventive monitoring | 19