Human rights in ‘closed environments’
– balancing demands and changing
cultures
European Society of Criminology Conference, Liege, Belgium,
September 2010
Bronwyn Naylor, Faculty of Law, Monash
University,
Inez Dussuyer, Office of the Ombudsman
Victoria, Australia
Presentation
• Challenges posed by ‘closed environments’ –
places of detention – in achieving human
rights recognition.
• Current Australian research
• Tentative conclusions
Challenges
• balancing competing demands: secure
containment vs all the rights of the
autonomous human being
– Eg Liberty
– Human conditions
– Family relationships
– Life and health
Purpose of detention may affect the
balancing exercise and what happens
in practice
• Prisons: deprivation of liberty as punishment;
expectation of suffering: residuum principle
• Immigration detention: punitive;
administrative; ‘security’ purposes.
• Psychiatric and intellectual disability
institutions: treatment of the client; safety of
the client; safety of others (staff and other
clients) – autonomy issues
The question: How can HR considerations be
effectively embedded into the day to day
practices of people running CEs?
• Aim: to develop a generic framework, as well
as sector specific frameworks, to assist in the
implementation of HRs.
• To develop practical strategies for
incorporating human rights in closed
environments, and
• To inform the work of oversight and
monitoring bodies
Methodology
• Interviewing heads of Departments managing
CEs
• Interviewing managers of facilities
• Interviewing unit staff
• Interviewing inmates/residents/clients
• Surveys and interviews with monitoring
bodies:
– State bodies – external and internal
– Civil society: welfare, advocacy bodies
Views of senior staff (Vic and ACT)
on implementing HR legislation
•
•
•
•
•
‘Myth busting’
Need for strong leadership: ‘champions’
Culture change – HR as ‘business as usual’
Training must ‘ring true’
Tap into existing ethos and good values
Views of senior staff on introducing
human rights legislation
• Positive
– Gives a language to frame concerns/issues
– Can draw on international jurisprudence
• Fears/resistance
– ‘threat’
• Staff feeling prisoner/resident rights take priority
– Open to abuse
– Increased demands on staff and resources
Examples of changed practice
• Strip-searching in prisons: move to require
‘reasonable grounds’
• Immigration detainees all offered health
services, rather than having to request.
The need to balance:
• Carrying out ‘the business’ of imprisonment
whilst respecting dignity of people
• Carrying out departmental obligations whilst
addressing government HR objectives
• Ensuring safety of psychiatric patients and
community whilst respecting autonomy
Factors in achieving change
• Communication
– To staff
– To inmates/residents
• Complaints mechanisms
– Internal/ external agencies
– Empowering inmates/clients to raise HR issues (eg
in psychiatric/disability settings)
Conclusions so far
• Value of cross-jurisdictional and cross-sectoral
comparisons
• Sharing of good practice
• Range of effective practices
• Beyond audits: responsive regulation
– Braithwaite
Drawing on Braithwaite – ‘responsive regulation’ model
sanctio
ns
Monitoring –
internal, and
external
Guidelines, targets,
reporting requirements
Good will – education - Information training