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

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

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.