NCJ Number
73448
Journal
Revue de droit penal et de criminologie Volume: 60 Issue: 5 Dated: (May 1980) Pages: 479-507
Date Published
1980
Length
29 pages
Annotation
This study presents hitherto unavailable information on Spanish military prisons, as well as a comparative study of the effects of the 1978 correctional reform law on both civilian and military corrections and their alternatives.
Abstract
Provisions of the December 29, 1978 correctional reform law, and their impact on the Spanish correctional system, both civilian and military are analyzed. At least in theory, substantial changes were formulated in penological philosophies, now formally oriented toward the ultimate rehabilitation and social reintegration of offenders. Shortcomings of the 1978 correctional reform include lack of provisions for using social workers services to assist inmates at admittance and release, of prescribed cultural and recreational programs, and of postrelease aid for ex-offenders. While substantially the same rehabilitation and social reintegration objectives apply to civilian and military prisons, it is stated that the latter remain closed to all outsiders, including penologists and that much harsher disciplinary measures are enforced on military prisoners, especially for enlisted personnel, although officers and noncommissioned officers enjoy substantially greater privileges. Women's prisons are found to have fewer programs and poorer equipment than those available to their male counterparts. Described in detail are all types of Spanish correctional facilities, their populations, regimes, special inmate programs (if any), individualized treatment criteria, prison work, and work incentives. The latter include redemption by work (i.e., one day cut from an inmate's sentence for every two days of satisfactorily completed work). Other rewards for good behavior include weekend and weekday furloughs and extra telephone conversations with relatives and friends. Disciplinary measures for infractions of prison rules, which include solitary confinement, are considered too harsh, especially for military prisoners. Current requirements concerning academic and training qualifications for correctional personnel are now higher than before 1978, but pay scales and, consequently, recruitment figures are found to be still too low. It is pointed out that alternatives to imprisonment (e.g., conditional release; fines; bail as a guarantee for good conduct; public or private reprimands for juvenile offenders; internal exile, exile, expulsion of foreign offenders; suspension or withdrawal of driver's licenses for traffic offenders; weekend arrest; suspended sentences; probation) are still applied too infrequently. Questions of correctional jurisdiction, especially for the Basque regions claiming autonomy, are still unresolved. Many aspects of the 1978 correctional reform law are deemed to need clarification, and the law itself is seen only as a first step on the road to truly progressive penological policies for both civilians and military personnel. Thirty-six references are appended.