Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Prisoners’ rights belong to the wider category of global human rights. They play an important role in the process of executing isolatory punishment and of defining the limits of the state in the rights and liberties of the imprisoned. Some would question whether prisoners’ rights should really be considered a human rights issue at all. Yet even the cruelest criminal is still a human being and deserves to be treated with respect. Human dignity is the primordial premise to the rudimental rights of prisoners.

Although criminal punishment is an intentional and a personal complaint adjudicated by the court, and applied by the state compulsion to the offender, the notion of prisoners’ rights asserts that the criminal complaint cannot deprive the prisoner of his or her dignity as a human being. Calls have been made in recent years for the consideration of the imprisonment as a form of deprivation of freedom only and not as limiting of other personal liberties. Even though, de facto, prisoners are usually also deprived or limited in other liberties and rights (e.g., the right to privacy), there is a large catalogue of rights still available to them. Deprivation of freedom is the interference of the state authority into the right to freedom, although this interference has its limitations. Today, the application of the criminal law by the state converges the limitations of freedoms with the upkeep of the basic principles of humanism.

Historical Outline: Formation of Human Rights

Even though law historians have able to locate the roots of a penitentiary law in ancient and medieval times, it was not until the 20th century that the legal status of a prisoner as a subject of rights and limitations was commonly acknowledged. The main difference between the ages can be found in the philosophy of punishment itself. Until the Age of Enlightenment, the criminal doctrine mainly emphasized “negative general crime prevention”—restraining prospective criminals from committing the crime by showing the inevitability of the punishment—as a fundamental rationale of the criminal law. For this purpose, the catalogue of penalties consisted mainly of corporal punishments such as mutilation (loss of a bodily member), blinding, and a broad array of ingenious ways of carrying out the death penalty. Sentences were often executed in public in order to display the inevitable fate of criminals. This meaning of prevention has excluded the isolation penalty from the scope of the word punishment as such. Although primitive jails existed, the time spent in a facility itself was not considered a penalty—the only role of imprisonment was to make it impossible for an offender to escape before pronouncing or executing a sentence. In these conditions, establishment of any consideration for prisoners’ legal subjectivity or statutes governing imprisonment would be meaningless.

It was not until the 16th century that the first “modern” penal code was developed. Although the “Constitutio Criminalis Carolina,” by the Holy Roman emperor, Charles V, still applied a wide array of death penalties for offenses, it recognized imprisonment as a form of punishment. The modern prison system was forming in accordance with the newly conceived philosophical ideas of the Age of Enlightenment, which brought a wave of humanitarian tendencies into the criminal law; they propagated the necessity of codifying penal law and perceived the deprivation of freedom not only as a means to the punishment, but also as a punishment itself.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading