Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Final Project: A World Apart



In this paper I will compare the corrections system of Argentina vs. United States. The different types of systems and institutions, the levels of security, the management, and prison life itself will be discussed. Also, I will decide the most effective correctional system and if the United States should adopt any aspects of the Argentine system.
The first penal institutions in Argentina were houses of corrections. But in the 1870s there was little progress in prison reform. In 1877, Buenos Aires had the first penitentiary opened. According to Roth (2006), the prison system was “based on a combination of Pentoville construction and Auburn discipline, prisoners worked in congregate settings during the day and were confined in solitary cells at night.” (p.13).
 In 1880 provincial prisons became federal prisons and during the same year, Italian influence and the analyses of Cesare Lombroso, convinced the Association for Juridical Anthropology to collect crime statistics.
Buenos Aires went through modernization in 1904, when its penitentiary adopted the Antonio Balve’s model which was similar to John Haviland’s model; the facilities were 5 glowing wings comprising 704 cells with two levels.
Many penology experts believe Argentina has the best prison systems in South America. Argentina’s prison system consists of 15 federal and 60 provincial prisons. The federal system has better management; the provinces of Santa Fe and Buenos Aires have the best prisons in the country.
Argentina’s federal prisons offer farms and open minimum-security facilities. Juveniles and women have special “houses” to train them in several trades and agriculture. More than 100 facilities accommodate just juveniles. Argentina like United States suffers overcrowded jails and prisons, yet it uses a grade system to determine release upon behavior as well as rehabilitation of prisoners.
The type of institutions and system of Argentina is exactly the same because is influenced by the same European concept of corrections. Argentina and the United States have been influenced by the Italian criminologist, Cesare Lombroso and adopted the Auburn system style.
Argentina’s correctional system has the bureaucratic style to run the prisons. The bureaucratic warden manages the internal and external environments. Internal environments are inmate social culture, prison's physical environment, and staff's culture. The external environments of corrections are the media, governor's office, and other officials; the civil department, rehabilitation advocates.  United States’ prisons are also managed under the bureaucratic management style. In addition, prison managers usually hold a college degree in criminal justice and sociology.
Population in Argentina’s prisons is a main issue for the correctional system. According to Aparicio and Ortenzi ( n.d) “The prison population rose from 29,690 (pretrial detainees and convicts) in 1997 to 54,000 in 2006. If one adds those who are detained in police facilities or in facilities of security forces, the total number is 60,621. The total present prison capacity is 46,494 places. There is a shortage of prison capacity of almost 25%.” (Aparicio, Ortenzi, p.188).
However the statistics do not explain that detention of pre-trial detainees can last months and even years; it is mainly due to failure in justice administration. Almost all prisoners are Argentine, Less than half are single and only 12% is married. A recent study demonstrated that drug offenses are committed mostly by women and foreigners. According to Alejandro Corda’s report and written by Kersten (2011) Currently, the most common type of crime for which women are imprisoned within the Federal Penitentiary Service is drug offenses, and the prisons of the Province of Buenos Aires are starting to show a similar trend.” (Kersten 2011, pg.4).
Similar issues such as overpopulation in American prisons are a concern in the United Sates. For this reason, privatization is starting to be a solution and to alleviate the state financially. In Argentina most prisons are from the state, though correctional experts are considering privatizing some of the federal prisons in this country.
Argentina’s prisons do not have the same security level in all prisons. This South American country has special sections for:
·         Pre-trial detainees (federal level);
·         Closed facility with maximum security level;
·         Medium security level facilities;
·         Penal colonies or semi-open institutions;
·         Open institutions;
·         Half-way houses;
·         Medical institutions.
The same type of security levels are found in the United States corrections; both countries have maximum-security, medium, and low-security prisons and jails as well as semi-open institutions and half-way houses.


According to Ortenzi and Aparicio (n.d ), “94% of the prison population is of Argentine nationality, 73% is single and 12% is married, 70% of the prisoners is aged between 18 and 34, 94% is male and 91% came from urban area. 49% was employed prior to the detention, 77% has a low educational level, 49% finished primary school, 4% secondary school and 6% finished other studies.” (Aparicio and Ortenzi n.d, p.187-204). Inmates in Argentina’s prisons have the right to receive intimate visits from their permanent spouses or partners, and these visits should be discreet and respect decency.
Comparable to the Argentine prison life and sociological aspect, prisons in North America have social groups, language, gangs, and diverse demographic.
The prison policy in Argentina states that it is necessary to offer programs for inmates for a social re-insertion into society.  In fact, a new treatment called Socializing Pedagogical Methodology has been in used for over a decade with juveniles and adults in Federal Prison System. On of the programs for prisoners occur ninety days before they are to be released; the program prepares the prisoner intensely to return to society. Prisoners in the United States beneficiate from programs and rehabilitation before and after they are released from prison.
The Enforcement of custodial sentence Act is applicable to all inmates and consists in transferring him or her into semi open institutions. Parole days allow inmates to go home for 12, 24, or 72 hours. Work release allows the prisoner to leave prison and go to work. Parole days have to be authorized by a judge.
The United States has a very similar probation system. Prisoners can be released before they finish their time in prison and can be put on probation; half-way houses are available for those inmates who qualify and can go to work.
The first reformation-type amendment is called the First Triumvirate and it states “each citizen has a sacred right to the protection of his life, honor, freedom, and property; the possession of such right, center of civil liberty and foundation of all social institutions, is what is called individual security”. (Aparicio, Ortenzi, n.d). This clause also stated that no citizen could be sentenced without previous trial, or arrested without believable proof.
The United States of America has similar constitutional rights that protect the inmates from unnecessary punishment, a right to clean clothes, food and decent housing. In addition, all citizens are protected from unlawful search and seizures and arrest without consistent evidence.
The Argentine legal system is combination of U. S and European legal systems. The laws of Argentina are very clear and protect the human rights of the prisoners. However, from my living experience in this country, I can assure the laws are not practiced and the living conditions of the prisoners are not even close to the ones living in the United States prisons.
As mentioned before, the prisoners have their human rights guaranteed in United States more than any South American country. Nevertheless there is one thing the United States should adopt into its correctional system , is the right all inmates have, to have frequent visits from their long-term and permanent spouse or partner.    
Argentina and United States have been influenced by the same European criminologists.  With that said, their constant progress in corrections have been similar and happened at around the same time. Both countries have same type of institutions and system; same bureaucratic management; similar population and privatization issues and concerns; several prison security levels; same view on rehabilitation and programs, and constitutional rights that protect the prisoners. However, due to Argentina’s constant political and economic uncertainty, the law is not always, if not ever, applied.

















References
·         Roth, M. P. (2006). Prisons and Prison Systems (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
·         kersten, T. (2011). Drug Law Reform in Latin America. TNI. Retrieved from http://www.druglawreform.info/en/country-information
·         Aparicio,Ortenzi, J. E. R. P. (n.d). Prison policy, prison regime and prisoners’ rights in Argentina. International Penal and Penitentiary Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.internationalpenalandpenitentiaryfoundation.org/Site/documents/Stavern/11_Stavern_Report%20Argentina.pdf


No comments:

Post a Comment