Boomerang

Imprisonment deprives a person of a lot more than just freedom. Ukrainian prisons are overcrowded, aggressive, and disease infested. Adequate conditions of incarceration are still a long way off for Ukrainian prisoners. The interests of this social group are no doubt the least of the government’s worries. As expected, the question of amnesties and alternative forms of punishment is gaining increasing relevance. Not so long ago the president signed a decree to pardon 96 individuals sentenced to imprisonment and other forms of punishment. Proposals to pardon them came from a special commission subordinated to the president of Ukraine. The commission took into account the nature of the crimes, positive information about the convicts, their good behavior, family status, financial status, and circumstances of the crimes. Appeals from another 363 convicts were rejected because “they did not set out on the path of correction.” This year the president signed fifteen decrees to pardon 1,096 convicts.

Nearly three million Ukrainians have been called to criminal account since independence, with every third sentenced to a prison term. Experts claim, however, that a certain percentage of convicts do not pose a major social threat and could just as well be subjected to other, alternative, forms of punishment that have been incorporated into the current legislation. Ukraine has one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world. Together with the US, Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, Ukraine is among the top five countries with the largest number of prisoners. Meanwhile, in most European countries the percentage of imprisoned convicts is a mere 10-12% of the total number of convicts. According to the Verkhovna Rada human rights commissioner, as of January 1, 2002 the number of inmates in penitentiaries exceeded the number of beds by 28,000. What is the reason behind the state’s active efforts to send people behind bars?

According to Oleksandr Betsa, law program manager of the International Renaissance Foundation, the shadow economy, organized crime, and pervasive corruption are a major concern with the public, which drives them to demand forceful action from the authorities. “Public opinion is leaning toward the harshest possible treatment of criminals. The authorities and courts attribute the punitive nature of crime prevention policy and judicial practice to this factor,” says Oleksandr Betsa. In the last while parliament has received forty proposals to criminalize certain offences. In recent years the percentage of punitive measures has increased to 65%, i.e., 65% of offenders have been sent to jail. This is happening despite the fact that the crime rate rose sharply only in the early years of independence — between 1992 and 1995. Since 1996 the crime rate has been showing a trend toward stabilization.

Passed in 2001, the new Criminal Code also reflects the public’s punitive attitude. Overall, it is even harsher that the Soviet criminal code of 1960. “The state is placing its bets on criminal legislative retaliation,” says Oleksandr Betsa. Of the 665 sanctions in the 1960 code, only 291, or 43.7%, entailed imprisonment, and 25.7% of sanctions incorporated alternative forms of punishment. In the Criminal Code of 2001, 500 of the 695 sanctions, or 71%, envision imprisonment. Granted, the new code provides for alternative forms of punishment, but statistics suggest that they are not practiced widely. To illustrate, 201,000 individuals were sentenced in 2003. Of these, 1.4% were sentenced to community work, 1.6% to correctional labor, 1% to arrest, 1.7% to custodial terms, and 4.4% to fines. Overall, no prison terms were imposed in only 10% of all cases. Meanwhile, in 2003 nearly 28,000 persons were sentenced to three years in prison, 1,843 to one year, 10,791 to between one and two years, and 15,274 to between two and three years. In general, the new Criminal Code has formally increased the number of possibilities for imprisoning people, which explains the tendency toward prison sentences in courts. This situation is mitigated by the vigorous application of Paragraph 75 of the Criminal Code, which provides for release on parole. Over 111,000 convicts, or 55.4% of the total number of new convicts, were released under this paragraph in 2003.

As for fines, heavy unemployment cancels out this form of punishment. According to the Supreme Court’s data, 70% of those convicted in 2003 were unemployed when they committed their crime. Understandably, most often such people commit crimes for gain. Meanwhile, proving a person’s guilt in the case of an acquisitive crime is easiest. As a result, theft and similar offences account for nearly 60% of all crimes.

Where does such a situation lead besides overcrowded prisons? The state’s excessive zeal for imprisonment causes economic and social losses. “It is quite common to see cases where people, who have stolen, say, 200 hryvnias, end up behind bars for several years, despite the fact that the monthly cost of supporting one convict is 120 hryvnias. It is easy to calculate the losses of the state,” says Oleksandr Betsa. According to the parliamentary human rights ombudsperson, in order to maintain convicts the Penitentiary Department is forced to spend almost all its financial resources on food and other daily costs. But the little money prisons receive is not enough: food, living conditions, and medical care fall short of standards. With convicts deprived of the possibility to work, the state cannot offset its economic losses. According to the human rights ombudsperson, more than half of all inmates cannot get jobs in the penitentiary system, and those who have such an opportunity earn no more than seventy to eighty hryvnias per month.

As for social losses, psychologists claim that long prison terms cause convicts to develop an asocial worldview, which is more likely to lead to more crimes and damages to the state in the near future. Nearly 160,000 of our compatriots have been placed in conditions that do not facilitate successful social rehabilitation. Notably, most of the prison population is comprised of young, working-age people, with 47.4% of prisoners under thirty years of age. Five or seven years in prison cause irreversible psychological changes. Almost every other convict suffers from some sort of psychological disorder.

Aside from antisocial behavior and psychological disorders, prisoners risk contracting tuberculosis or AIDS. Statistically, prisons are now home to 12,000 persons with active TB and hundreds of HIV-positive individuals. Convicts are also mistreated by prison personnel and suffer from having to look at the sky from behind heavily grated prison cell windows. According to the parliamentary human rights ombudsperson, many prisons have heavily grated windows, equipped with metal shutters or so-called “pockets.” For example, the windows in Lychakiv prison are welded over with sheets of metal.

Clearly, European convicts are much better off. Moreover, officials in the West recognized long ago that imprisonment is the most costly type of punishment, which should be used only in the case of dangerous crimes that threaten the lives or health of people or national security. Imprisonment is considered adequate punishment for drug peddling, serious economic crimes, and environmental damage. In all other cases other methods of punishment are used, such as various warnings, with the offender promising not to repeat the crime, and the court willing to believe him or her. Or they serve non-prison sentences by being placed under supervision. In most European countries this method is known as the probation system, which is a government service unrelated to the police or penitentiary system. Probation, i.e., a conditional sentence whereby the court sentence is suspended, is the most popular method of alternative punishment in Europe. Before trial a probation officer conducts a social study of the defendant’s personality. By conducting interviews, medical exams, and gathering official data, the probation officer aims to collect all kinds of information about the offender: from prior convictions to the defendant’s social behavior. The officer then determines how much benefit the given individual will receive from a probationary period in the community and whether s/he will pose any threat to this community. The results of this study should help the court hand down the right sentence and then assist the probation officer with re-socializing the offender. If the offender is sentenced to this alternative form of punishment, probation workers will supervise and re-socialize him or her, according to an individual program, by influencing the convict psychologically.

Experts claim that so far there is no empirical evidence proving that non-prison methods of punishment lead to a higher crime rate. Therefore, alternative methods of punishment could also improve the situation in Ukraine.