Science Fiction or Reality

• DOI: 10.1177/0032885511424392
• Published date: 01 December 2011
• Date: 01 December 2011
• Author: Dragan Petrovec,Mitja Muršič

The Prison Journal

91(4) 425 –447

© 2011 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0032885511424392

http://tpj.sagepub.com

424392TPJ91410.1177/00328855114243

92Petrovec and MuršičThe Prison Journal

© 2011 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

1University of Ljubljana, Slovenia

Corresponding Author:

Dragan Petrovec, University of Ljubljana, Institute of Criminology at the

Faculty of Law, Poljanski nasip 2, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Email: Dragan.Petrovec@pf.uni-lj.si

Science Fiction or

Reality: Opening

Prison Institutions

(The Slovenian

Penological Heritage)

Dragan Petrovec1 and Mitja Muršicˇ1

Abstract

The article presents probably the most relevant research to date on the

Slovene prison system. The study was conducted through a 2-year research

project sponsored by Ministry of Justice and carried out by the Institute

of Criminology in Ljubljana. Along with a “longitudinal” study of the social

climate in Slovene prison institutions, it evaluates the concepts, practices,

and results of so-called sociotherapy as a specific approach to treatment of

offenders. “Specific” in this case means that treatment simultaneously encom-

passes life in prison, the offenders’ social environment, and the inclusion of

prison staff. Sociotherapy began as an experiment during the mid-70s and led

to astonishing results, namely, the “opening” of prison institutions for almost

all inmates, regardless of the length of sentence or the crime committed.

Applying the findings of sociotherapy every 5 years since 1980, the social

climate in every Slovene prison institution has been measured to assess

the quality of support and control prisoners receive and the discipline and

treatment philosophies at work in the system. Finally, the article deals with

the situation after Slovene independence in 1991 and the passage of new

legislation. Against expectations, we find that with the advent of democracy,

standards of prisoner treatment have dropped. However, the success of

426 The Prison Journal 91(4)

the experiment should encourage all countries seeking to reduce the sig-

nificant costs of incarceration and attempting to make prison institutions

more humane.

Keywords

treatment of offenders, open prison institutions, social climate

Introduction

A large body of academic literature has criticized severe sentencing, the inhu-

mane treatment of offenders, and overpopulation of prison institutions. Yet

very few writers on this topic have supported the idea of transforming a closed

institution into an open one. Such a measure seems possible only when a care-

ful preselection of inmates is carried out.

Our review of some influential periodicals from the field of penology (The

Prison Journal, Probation Journal, International Journal of Offender Therapy

and Comparative Criminology, Punishment & Society, and Federal Probation)

has shown that in recent years, there have been no articles that would advo-

cate or present penological concepts and practices equivalent to the Slovenian

“whole-prison sociotherapeutic” approach.

There are some interesting mechanisms for reintegrating prisoners into

society while still serving sentence—for example, the open prison regime in

Spain where convicts spend a few hours a day outside the prison, working or

performing rehabilitation-related tasks, and also having leave on weekends

(Cid, 2005). Implementing such mechanisms, however, depends on a variety

of conditions (to qualify for an open prison regime, prisoners must have com-

pleted a quarter or half of the sentence and their reeducation prognosis must

be positive). Such measures do not, therefore, correspond to our concept of

how prisons should be truly made “open.”

Although most authors do not argue for opening prison regimes on the

basis we suggest, some do, however, recognize and support certain aspects

of our standpoint. In their follow-up study, Baumer, O’Donnell, and Hughes

(2009) found out that prisoners who were occasionally allowed to leave prison

for vocational or family-related purposes were significantly less likely to be

reimprisoned than those denied such leave. This is one of many clear indica-

tors that maintaining a prisoner’s social capital—for example, his social,

professional, and familial contacts on the “outside”—is greatly important

for social reintegration on full release. The potential role of prisoners’ fami-

lies in reducing reoffending is also explored in Mills and Codd (2008).