Returning once and for all: contrasting the public and private prison labour systems in search of the future we want.

一劳永逸地回归：对比公立和私立监狱劳动体系，寻找我们想要的未来。

• 批准号: 2408223
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University College London
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2020
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2020 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2408223
• 关键词: Returning; once; contrasting; public; private

Over the past few decades, most criminal justice systems have had to face significant challenges ranging from overcrowding, high recidivism rates, the increasing costs of a growing prison population and the low employment rate of prisoners within prisons. Faced with these issues and in the midst of a shifting global economy, several states decided to privatise parts of their penal systems, albeit in distinct manners. Nevertheless, the involvement of private enterprises in the penal system deserves attention due to the moral, social and legal implications that arise. In particular, it seems that international law may have been ignored or side-lined in the pursuit of a solution to the abovementioned issues. The wording of Article 2(2)(c) of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Forced Labour Convention of 1930, (No. 29), makes it clear that prisoners should not be "hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations" and should be supervised and controlled by a public authority. In consequence, prison privatisation and the employment of prisoners by private entities has a clear impact on the application of the international norm. Yet, the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR), established in 1926 and whose task is to evaluate the application in law and practice of international labour standards in ILO member states, has adopted an expansive and evolutionary interpretation of Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention. The CEACR has determined that states that have designed and implemented a system of privatised prison labour may nonetheless comply with the norm so long as further requirements are met: prisoners must consent to employment and employment conditions must approximate a free labour relationship in terms of wages, social security and occupational safety and health. States have therefore modelled and implemented their private prison labour systems and prison privatisation models in distinct manners as noted in my previous work on the topic. Given the recent increased global momentum in privatising penal systems, it is necessary to address the reasons behind such a move in order to be able to evaluate the systems erected against these. It is proposed that the research be focused on the employment of prisoners in: Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Austria, Hungary, Belarus, France, Germany, England & Wales, Scotland, Spain, United States of America and Canada. As a means of comparison and to measure the success of private involvement in the provision of employment for prisoners, the project will also consider and analyse the work arrangements of prisoners employed by the state in those same countries. Nevertheless, in doing so, it is important to bear in mind that while the Convention shields prisoners from forced labour for private benefit, it does not protect them from exploitation while working for the State. Although obvious from reading the Convention, in practice, this means that the State may force prisoners to work without infringing the Convention. As other members of the ILO such as Sweden and Norway have resisted the idea of large-scale involvement of private entities in their penitentiaries, the organisation of their penal systems and rehabilitation policies along with the reasons for such resistance deserve due consideration. This research will identify the structures in place in light of one of the most widely ratified norm of the ILO, using the requirements developed by the CEACR as indicators. In turn, this will allow the classification of the different systems and help establish whether states, in engaging in this practice, are actually working towards the objectives of modern penal systems: prisoner rehabilitation and reinsertion.

在过去的几十年里，大多数刑事司法系统都面临着巨大的挑战，包括过度拥挤、高累犯率、不断增加的监狱人口的成本增加以及监狱内囚犯的低就业率。面对这些问题，在全球经济不断变化的背景下，一些国家决定将部分刑罚制度私有化，尽管方式各不相同。然而，由于由此产生的道德、社会和法律影响，私营企业参与刑事制度的问题值得注意。特别是，在寻求解决上述问题的办法时，国际法似乎可能被忽视或搁置一边。《国际劳工组织1930年强迫劳动公约》（第29号）第2(2)(c)条的措词明确指出，不应将囚犯“雇用给私人、公司或协会或由其处置”，而应由公共当局监督和控制。因此，监狱私有化和私营实体雇用囚犯对国际准则的适用有明显的影响。然而，1926年设立的适用公约和建议问题专家委员会（CEACR）的任务是评价国际劳工组织成员国在法律和实践中适用国际劳工标准的情况，该委员会对公约第2(2)(c)条采用了一种扩大化和渐进式的解释。消除种族歧视委员会确定，设计和实施监狱劳动私有化制度的国家，只要满足进一步的要求，就可以遵守规范：囚犯必须同意就业，就业条件必须在工资、社会保障和职业安全与健康方面接近自由劳动关系。因此，正如我在以前关于该专题的工作中所指出的那样，各国以不同的方式模仿和实施了它们的私人监狱劳工制度和监狱私有化模式。鉴于最近全球刑法制度私有化的势头有所增强，有必要探讨这一行动背后的原因，以便能够评价针对这些制度而建立的制度。建议将研究重点放在下列国家的囚犯就业问题上：澳大利亚、新西兰、南非、阿尔及利亚、阿根廷、巴西、智利、哥伦比亚、奥地利、匈牙利、白俄罗斯、法国、德国、英格兰和威尔士、苏格兰、西班牙、美利坚合众国和加拿大。作为一种比较手段和衡量私人参与为囚犯提供就业的成功程度，该项目还将考虑和分析这些国家国家雇用的囚犯的工作安排。然而，在这样做时，重要的是要记住，虽然《公约》保护囚犯不为私人利益而强迫劳动，但它并没有保护他们在为国家工作时不受剥削。虽然从《公约》来看是显而易见的，但实际上，这意味着国家可以在不违反《公约》的情况下强迫囚犯工作。由于劳工组织的其他成员国，例如瑞典和挪威，反对私人实体大规模参与其监狱的想法，因此，它们的刑罚制度和改造政策的组织以及这种抵制的原因值得适当考虑。这项研究将根据劳工组织得到最广泛批准的一项准则确定现有的结构，并以中欧劳工关系委员会制定的要求作为指标。反过来，这将有助于对不同的制度进行分类，并有助于确定从事这种做法的国家是否实际上在努力实现现代刑罚制度的目标：囚犯康复和重新融入社会。