HUMAN RIGHTS CULTURE CHANGE IN PLACES OF DETENTION b. Opening up places of detention Ensuring transparency of places of detention introduces a balancing cultural influence and acts as a deterrent for potential abuse. It includes a range of initiatives such as allowing external scrutiny of places of detention by independent monitors such as NGOs, national, regional and international bodies, ensuring visits by officials such as judges and prosecutors, and public inquiries into detention practices. It also includes allowing NGOs to enter these places to provide services and creating links between detainees and the outside world, for example through family visits. The latter contributes to rehabilitation and reintegration post release and hence to reducing reoffending. Culture change can be aided by breaking down the artificial barriers that tend to exist between authorities in charge of places of detention and human rights actors, including NGOs, national human rights institutions and academia working on these issues. The former often see the latter as troublemakers or not understanding the operational nature of their work. But experience suggests that culture change is more likely to be effective when they work constructively together. Civil society can provide expertise, point out problems and suggest solutions, share international practices and monitor change processes to contribute to their sustainability. changes in government and policy.68 Legislation can provide a certainty not offered by government policies. d. The influence of other institutions and actors on culture in places of detention The deprivation of liberty occurs within a wider institutional framework. For example, courts are often involved in ordering detention and ensuring safeguards against ill-treatment are respected. Prosecutors may supervise police and have an oversight role of detention. Rule of law institutions are responsible for ensuring oversight and accountability, including through impartial investigations and the effective prosecution of human rights violations which are defined as criminal offences. The attitudes and values of these actors can drive or hinder culture change in detention. They are in turn likely to be influenced by those of society in general. For example, in many Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries, prosecutors have a prison oversight function. However, the prosecution is often one of the few institutions that has not undergone reform since Soviet times. Although prosecutors regularly visit prisons and meet with staff and prisoners, they commonly side with the prison administration and fail to properly investigate allegations of human rights violations of prisoners. c. Legislation and public policies as drivers for culture change The role of judges in changing police culture in the UK Legislation has been a component of many processes of culture change in places of detention. This includes legislation setting out specific rules, procedures and responsibilities in relation to detention, changing the way things are done. It also includes human rights legislation, which provides a set of principles to be respected by staff in the course of their work. In some cases, legislation may reflect changes in societal attitudes or be enacted to comply with international obligations or recommendations of expert bodies. There is some debate as to whether human rights legislation alone can bring about culture change in detention, but there is no doubt that it can contribute to it. ‘Before there was a culture of ill-treatment. Detectives would give someone a crack to get a confession. There were rules against it but they were never enforced and the courts turned a blind eye…But British society started to change. Then the courts decided not to turn a blind eye anymore – they started to refuse evidence obtained through coercion. That had a big impact on policing – because there’s nothing worse for a police officer than losing a case’. Public policies can also feed into the paradigm of detaining organisations and generate, as well as reflect, wider social attitudes regarding detention. Unfortunately, public policies relating to detention can be reactive or opportunistic, as seen in policies that are tough on crime or immigration in the run up to elections. But they may also have a positive effect. In Australia, an immigration policy in 2008 moved from mandatory detention of illegal immigrants to a ‘client-focused approach’ which employed detention as a last resort.67 This had a positive impact on the experience of immigration detainees, although many initial gains have since been lost with Former UK police officer e. The need for culture change to be embedded in wider society Human rights culture change needs to be embedded within wider societal values in order to take effect and be truly sustainable. For example, a reform of the New South Wales Police, Australia, was successful in minimising corruption but had little impact on improving relations with minority groups.69 A study found this was because there had been ‘widespread community and political concern about corruption’ but not ‘the same 67. J Phillips and H Spinks, Immigration detention in Australia, Parliament of Australia, 2012. 68. According to discussions at the conference, Implementing Human Rights in Closed Environments, Monash University (Melbourne, Australia) 20 – 21 February 2012, Parallel Session 7D: Asylum and Immigration. 69. J Chan, ‘Changing Police Culture’, British Journal of Criminology, vol. 36, issue 1, 1996, p109. 70. ibid., p130. Penal Reform International | Institutional culture in detention: a framework for preventive monitoring | 17