Can prisons be changed?

Valerie Icard. Normalising the prison space is only one aspect of a broader process, which includes other dimensions¹. Indeed, to use Dan Kaminski’s words, the normalisation of prisons can be considered a “political objective” which aims to align life in prison with life outside by limiting the prison sentence to the “sole deprivation of liberty of movement.” More tangibly, normalisation consists of attenuating the prison environment by concealing or removing barbed wire and fences. It also aims to provide imprisoned people with public services like those outside. This is why some new prisons are designed on a “small town” model.

This objective faces several limitations. First, the widespread idea is that conditions of imprisonment should not be better than the harshest living conditions outside of prison. This principle of less eligibility is still evident in the “five-star prisons” myth, often mentioned in various discussions.

One could also argue that the pursuit of normalisation is inherently paradoxical: how can we envision a prison where living conditions resemble those of free life when it is, by definition, a segregated place removed from society designed to isolate certain individuals?

Finally, studying the concept of normalisation requires important precautions. It is crucial to reject any narrow vision of rights in prison that could be reduced to mere comfort during detention. Moreover, normalisation must not obscure the central issue of the socio-political stakes of prison confinement and the “latent functions” of prison identified by Michel Foucault.

VI. Respect modules are a new approach to detention that originated in Spain in 2001, initiated by a local programme within the Mansilla las Mulas prison. They gradually spread and are now institutionalised and implemented in all penitentiary facilities in Spain. They are touted as one of the cornerstones of the Spanish prison system and were applied to nearly 40% of the incarcerated population in 2017.

According to information given by the Spanish authorities, the respect modules aim to empower prisoners and make them more accountable. This involves adhering to additional behavioural requirements outlined in the prison’s internal regulation, participating in daily detention management, and promoting various activities. To join a respect module, prisoners must volunteer and then be selected by the prison administration.

This system works on the principle of give-and-take. Prisoners benefit from advantages over conventional detention, such as greater freedom of movement or a wider range of activities. In exchange for being placed in a respect module, they agree by “contract” to follow the administration’s recommendations, respect the rules of the module (which include numerous regulations, even on the number of pairs of socks allowed), participate in cleaning tasks for free and undergo systematic evaluations of their behaviour by the professional team. If they do not comply with these requirements, they risk being dismissed from the respect module.

Respect modules have achieved success beyond Spanish borders. They have been tested in several facilities in France since 2015. Deemed revolutionary by their proponents, the experiment has been taken up by the French Directorate of Prison Administration (Direction de l’administration pénitentiaire, DAP) as part of their policies to consider differentiated regimes.

The implementation of this new system in French prisons has raised several issues. First and foremost, the administration needed to make the respect modules appealing to prisoners, despite their additional behavioural requirements. Several strategies have been developed in this regard. Furthermore, a specific architectural configuration is required for their implementation.

This system is based on granting privileges, so there must be a flip side: areas where prisoners are deprived of them. This logic of differentiating detention types requires a physical separation between conventional detention and the respect modules. Implementing the respect modules also requires the surveillance staff to redefine their professional practices: now that they have the authority to evaluate behaviours, they must also support prisoners in their rehabilitation efforts.

In conclusion, my research on the respect modules in France and Spain shows that they rely on a subtle balance between behavioural requirements and formal and informal privileges that can be withdrawn at any time. This carrot-and-stick system encourages prisoners to adopt self-monitoring behaviours and submit to the institutional project. Indeed, it is a new and effective tool for behaviour management.

VI. The role of the prison guard highlights the tension between the security and reintegration missions of the prison administration, which might seem contradictory. In their daily practice, surveillance staff are often limited to guarding the prison. Professional, organisational, and institutional factors make it difficult for them to focus on the social dimension of their profession. These people are often reduced to “gatekeeper” roles and repressive authorities. As shown in sociological literature, they often report feeling useless and out of place in the face of contemporary prison developments.

A new security model is valued in this context: dynamic security, also known as active security. This model challenges the conventional coercive approach based on deterrence, punishment, control, and isolation. It was first adopted in the United Kingdom in 1985, and it is now promoted by the bodies of the Council of Europe, as well as in French, Scandinavian and Canadian prisons, among others.

In its preventive approach to maintaining internal security, this new security model relies on developing “positive relationships” between the surveillance staff and the prisoners. We are moving away from the negative image of the prison guard who maintains order using coercive, disciplinary means and sometimes resorts to violence. This model involves normalising the relationship between guards and incarcerated people: as ordinary interactions become possible, dialogue is encouraged. Creating a social space within the prison is promoted through shared training, conflict resolution through mediation, organising and participating in activities (like Pétanque tournaments, a popular French sport), and more informal gatherings, such as sharing convivial moments over coffee.

On the surface, the practice of domination and coercion can be reduced within this framework. However, it is essential to emphasise that this approach does not rule out the primary objectives of prison. Indeed, improving the relationship between guards and prisoners aims to optimise internal security. Getting to know the detained person is only intended to help anticipate their behaviours and reactions.

As I’ve explained in my research, dynamic security can reinforce the surveillance staff’s authority, established through a combination of factors, including compliance with prison regulations and adopting a more communicative and benevolent approach rather than relying solely on coercive and disciplinary methods. Now, it also relies on a form of soft power. Dynamic security is part of a process to improve ways of maintaining order in modern prisons.