1997 – A More Humane Prison

/in /by

Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl’s 1997 National Campaign
A MORE HUMANE PRISON

Barely a year after Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl’s public appearance, this was its first national campaign, the one that set the rhythm for the rest, and the one that confirmed the organisation’s public image. The theme of the campaign — expressed with just two words in Maltese: “Habs b’Umanità” — articulated the whole of Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl’s beliefs and principles. The campaign, in fact, served as an appropriate introduction of the organisation and its ideal to the Maltese public.

The campaign began on January 9th, 1997, when the Steering Committee of Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl convened at Marsascala. The aid of the campaign was to make the general public more aware of the need that the prisons be a place that builds people not ruins them.

As a logo for the campaign (see below), Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl chose the “Vetruvius Man” image of Leornardo da Vinci. The image, a symbol of humanity, appears encircled with barbed wire, which is a symbol of captivity and subjugation. The whole logo, then, indicates the oppressed humanity within the prisons, but also the nobility and sacredness of the human dignity of every man and woman.

The campaign also included some publications and even a plan for a video presentation in collaboration by the national television station.

The campaign was held over a one-year period, and was a success. This may be clearly seen from the fact that the very words (in Maltese) “habs b’umanità” (literally meaning: a prison with humanity), used as the campaign’s motto, entered the normal parlance of many people, including those responsible for better conditions at the prisons, and even the civil authorities. More or less, the words “habs b’umanità” began to be used as a substitute for the other much-stretched word, “reform”.

Back in 1995, the Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl’s founders had stated: “We are not trying to give the impression that the prisoners are angles. What we are saying is that, if people have to pay their dues to society, then they must do this with dignity and respect in an environment suitable for this”.

Part of this campaign included introducing the public to the concept of the “Day with the Family” system for prisoners. This project, however, was not developed completely, but just introduced. It was left for a later national campaign.

All in all, the 1997 national campaign towards the awareness of the need for a more humane prison, which was the bottom line of all Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl.

2001 – Home Leave

/in /by

Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl’s 2001 National Campaign
HOME LEAVE

Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl proposed the Home Leave system as a true incentive to prisoners, and as a serious support to their families. In a few words, Home Leave is a system with which a prisoner is given the possibility to visit, under certain conditions, his close relatives or intimate friends every month at home.

What follows is the basic document issued by Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl as a guide for the national campaign.

The Home Leave proposal is mainly intended to diminish some bad side-effects of the administration of penal justice, particularly in relation to the families of prisoners, to the administration of discipline at the prisons, and to the affective verve of prisoners.

Disordered justice?

Every crime creates some kind of disorder. The courts try to correct that disorder with the least possible bad effects for all the parties involved.

Incarceration, as a corrective punishment, is one of the most disciplinary means that, notwithstanding the good intentions of the courts and legislators, effectively creates bad effects in diverse sectors. These bad effects increase whenever the situation at the prisons is counter-productive to the intentions of justice administrators.

The present situation at the prisons is such that the prisoners therein live a life of “reclusive vagrancy”. The larger part of the prisoners simply sit idle from morning till night. If they are not narrating their criminal experiences to each other, with many a flourish and much colouring, and thus learning each other’s criminal methods, they merely act like kindergarten children, and tease each other. The wardens and the most weak prisoners are their most facile and common target.

The prisons, then, reacting to this situation, is organised in such a way so as to function as a “sedative”. It is intended to cause a soothing effect on the prisoners in order to quieten their disordered fantasies and whims. The prison authorities, in fact, are particularly adept to do two things: first, not to allow any prisoner to escape; and, secondly, to keep the prisoners as still as possible (and use punishments to this effect).

Main aims of the Home Leave proposal

The Home Leave proposal is intended to:

  • Provide a serious incentive to sentenced prisoners so as to behave themselves while incarcerated
  • Facilitate order and discipline within the prisons
  • Increases prisoners’ self-confidence
  • Balances the affective emotions of prisoners and their close relations (including children)
  • Sustains the family relationships of prisoners

Operating the Home Leave system

The attainment of Home Leave by a prisoner shall be automatic under the following conditions:

  • It shall be attained once a month
  • A prisoner shall be eligible for Home Leave after served one third of at least one of his sentences (commuted without the removal of remission)
  • During his Home Leave a prisoner shall be accompanied by only one security officer
  • Only one Home Leave may be missed if, in the period from the preceding Home Leave, a prisoner was found to have violated some prison rule
  • Any serious abuse on the part of a prisoner during his Home Leave makes him/her ineligible for Home Leave for the rest of his/her sentence
  • The definition of “family” in this proposal shall be according to the dispositions of the Prison Regulations

Home Leave as an incentive

Prisoners would behave better and make a more economical use of their time if they had incentives to do these. Nobody does anything for nothing. And prisoners are no exception. Like everybody else they need encouragement and support.

An incentive in a person’s life means that s/he has a reason for which to do something, an aim with which s/he acquires some advantage for himself. The prisoner, whose whole life is controlled by others, and who does not have the freedom of doing anything without the permission of others, needs a lot of encouragement. It is true that s/he has to pay his debts to society, but this does not mean that he should not have motives for his actions.

When a prison has an incentive encouraging him/her to behave, at the same time he will have a good and sufficient reason to distance him/herself from bad actions.

Unfortunately, the current system at the prisons has few incentives, if any, even if the new regulations mention incentives in various articles. The present system, in fact, insists more on punishments than incentives. This system is wrong, and only helps the prisoner’s situation to deteriorate.

The principle to be used in a system of incentives is this: reward good behaviour to avoid bad behaviour. Our prisons do not use this principle very much.

An incentive not a privilege

What shall be now stated rests very much on the Woolf Report. This report was issued by Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf in 1991 with the aim of reforming the penal and corrective systems inEnglandandWales. The report is the most authoritative document on prison matters that was issued inEuropefor these last hundred years.

Some matters at the prisons are called “privileges”. Considering the circumstances, it is a very incorrect word to use. The Woolf Report expressly stated that such matters “should not be described as privileges”. The word normally indicates some advantage given to someone due to some special grace.

Privileges are matters that are still considered necessary in prison life. For example, it is called a privilege that a prisoner calls his/her family once a day, or that s/he meets his family once a week under surveillance, or that s/he possesses a radio or television in his/her little cell, or even that s/he goes and returns from work outside the facility during the last three months of his/her sentence.

A privilege, then, is called so since it can be revoked as a punishment against some infringement of prison regulations.

The Woolf Report states that “these facilities should be part of a prisoner’s normal expectation”. This is far from what exists inMalta’s prisons today. But this was also the situation inEnglandandWalesbefore the reforms made by Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf.

In fact, the Report states thus: “A system of incentives cannot be grafted onto the system of ‘privileges’. A system of minor incentives would be hard to administer fairly and without fear of prejudice. Incentives should be built into the prison system”.

Is Home Leave just another privilege?

As the Woolf Report stated, the system of incentives and the system of privileges must not be adopted together. The system of privileges is out-dated and, as the Woolf Report itself stated: “the discretion allowed to governors to grant and withdraw selected ‘privileges’ has left prisoners aggrieved, and with some justification”.

Home Leave is not yet another privilege, but a serious and powerful incentive to reward good behaviour and avoid bad behaviour. As an incentive, Home Leave is also most efficacious, since it simultaneously goes to the root of many problems, mostly because of the bad effects caused by the separation from the family.

Problems generated by the separation from the family

The separation from the family:

  • Creates problems due to lack of sexual relief, both to the prisoner and to those who close to him/her with ties of matrimony and/or affection
  • Estranges sons and daughters from their parents, and vice versa
  • Encourages matrimonial infidelity
  • Facilitates lack of knowledge of familiar problems on the part of the prisoner
  • Emphasizes the lack of support of the prisoner in family responsibilities
  • Increases the sense of isolation in those who are close to the prisoner with ties of matrimony and/or affection
  • Breaks up the family

Home Leave in other countries

The Home Leave system, though called with different names (“conjugal visits”, etc.), is used successfully in many other countries that are much larger than ours, and in which the situation is much more complicated than ours. In certain countries, their version of Home Leave is used without the surveillance of security officers.

The Woolf Report was in favour that system such as Home Leave be given greater importance and space. “Home leave should be extended,” stated the Report, “Home leave should not be confined just to long term prisoners. Home leave restores prisoners’ self-confidence, helps maintain family relationships, and is an incentive to behave well in prison. It also eases pressure on prisoners and on staffing.” The Report insists that “provision should be made for private family visits for prisoners serving long sentences”.

The family cherishes very much family values together with the cohesion and solidity they generate to the social fabric. Home Leave is a means with which families of prisoners do not crumble away but, on the contrary, continue to grow stronger. This benefits the prisoners themselves, their families and children, and all the Maltese society.

 

 

 

Verzjoni bil-Malti

Kampanja Nazzjonali ta’ Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl fl-2001
HOME LEAVE

Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl ipproponiet is-sistema tal-Home Leave bhala incentiv veru fil-habs u bhala appogg serju lill-familji tal-prigunieri. Fi ftit kliem, il-Home Leave hija sistema li biha resident fil-habs jinghata l-possibbiltà li jzur qraba jew intimi tieghu kull xahar taht certu kundizzjonijiet.

Dan li gej huwa d-dokument baziku li xandret Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl bhala gwida ghall-kampanja nazzjonali taghha.

Il-proposta tal-HOME LEAVE hija mahsuba l-aktar sabiex it-thaddim tal-gustizzja tnaqqas kemm jista’ jkun l-effetti dizordinati taghha fil-hajja tal-familji tal-habsin, fl-amministrazzjoni tad-dixxiplina fil-habs u fl-affezzjonijiet tal-habsin.

Gustizzja dizordnata?

Kull reat johloq dizordni. Il-qrati jhaddmu l-gustizzja b’tali mod li jippruvaw jikkoregu dik id-dizordni mahluqaminnreat bl-anqas effetti hziena possibbli ghall-partijiet kollha nvoluti.

Il-habs, bhala kastig korrettiv, huwa wiehed mill-aktar mizuri dixxiplinarji li fil-fatt, minkejja l-intenzjonijiet tajba tal-legislaturi, johloq effetti hziena f’hafna oqsma. Dawn l-effetti jizdiedu meta l-qaghda tal-habs tkun kontro-producenti ghall-intenzjonijiet ta’ l-amministraturi tal-gustizzja.

Il-qaghda kurrenti tal-habs hija tali li fiha l-habsin ighixu hajja ta’ “vagabondagg rekluz”: il-bicca l-kbira tal-habsin ma jaghmlu xejn il-gurnata kollha. Jekk ma jkunux qeghdin jaqsmu l-esperjenza kriminali taghhom ma’ xulxin u jitghallmu l-metodi delinkwenti ta’ xulxin, jaraw ma’ min jew ma’ xiex se jaqbdu. L-ufficjali u l-awtoritajiet tal-habs huma l-vittmi jew il-mira l-aktar komuni u facli taghhom.

Il-habs, ghalhekk, biex jilqa’ ghal din il-qaghda, hu mfassal b’tali mod biex johloq “effett sedattiv”: huwa ntenzjonat li jhalli effett bhal ta’ kalmant fuq il-mizmuma biex iraqqad fihom it-tnebbih dizordnat ta’ mohhhom. L-awtoritajiet tal-habs, infatti, huma partikularment attenti biex jaghmlu zewg affarijiet: wahda, li ma jhallu ebda habsi jaharbilhom; u, it-tieni, li l-habsin joqghodu kwieti kemm jista’ jkun (u, ghalhekk, jikkastigawh jekk ma joqghodx).

Il-ghanijiet tal-HOME LEAVE

Il-proposta tal-HOME LEAVE hija mahsuba li tilhaq dawn l-ghanijiet ewlenin:

  • Tohloq incentiva serja ghall-habsin sentenzjati sabiex joqghodu bil-ghaqal waqt iz-zamma taghhom
  • Tiffacilita z-zamma ta’ l-ordni u d-dixxiplina fil-habs
  • Tkabbar is-self-confidence tal-habsin
  • Tibbilancja l-emozzjonijiet affettivi tal-habsin u ta’ l-eqreb familjari taghhom (inkluz it-tfal)
  • Issostni r-relazzjonijiet familjari tal-habsin
  • Kif tista’ tinhadem il-HOME LEAVE.

Il-kisba tal-HOME LEAVEminnhabsi tkun awtomatika:

  • Tkun tista’ tinkiseb darba kull xahar
  • Tkun tista’ tibda tinkiseb wara li l-habsi jkun skonta terz ta’ ghall-anqas wahda mis-sentenzi moghtija lilu mill-qorti (minghajr it-tnaqqis tar-remission)
  • Fil-HOME LEAVE tieghu habsi jkun akkumpanjatminnufficjal wiehed tas-sigurta’
  • Okkazjoni wahda ta’ HOME LEAVE tintilefminnhabsi jekk fix-xahar ta’ qabilha jkun instab hati ta’ reat kontra d-dixxiplina tal-habs
  • Kull abbuz serju ta’ habsi waqt il-HOME LEAVE tieghu ttellfu milli jgawdi mill-incentiv ghall-bqija tas-sentenza tieghu
  • Id-definizzjoni ta’ ‘familja’ fl-incentiv tal-HOME LEAVE tkun skond id-disposizzjonijiet tar-Regolamenti tal-Habs.

Il-HOME LEAVE bhala ncentiv

Il-habin igibu ruhhom ahjar u jaghmlu uzu aktar siewiminnhinhom fil-habs jekk ikollhom incentivi ghal dan l-iskop. Hadd ma jaghmel xejn ghal xejn. U l-habsin m’humiex aghar jew ahjarminnhaddiehor. Huma bhal kulhadd li jridu ’l min jaghmlilhom kuragg u jheggighom.

Li bniedem ikollu ncentiv f’hajtu jfisser li jkollu xi skop ghal xiex ghandu jaghmel xi haga, skop li bih jikseb xi vantagg ghalih innifsu. Il-habsi, li hajtu hi kollha kemm hi ikkontrollataminnhaddiehor, u m’ghandu ebda liberta’ jaghmel xi haga minghajr il-permess ta’ haddiehor, irid ’il min jaghmillu hafna kuragg f’hajtu. Tassew li ghandu jhallas ta’ dak li ghamel, imma dan ma jfissirx li m’ghandux ikollu motiv ghall-azzjonijiet tieghu.

Metahabsi jkollu ncentivi li jhajruh joqghod bil-ghaqal, fl-istess hin dan ifisser li jkollu raguni tajba u sufficjenti biex jitbieghed mill-imgieba hazina.

B’xorti hazina, is-sistema karcerarja li qieghda tintuza bhalissa ftit ghandha ncentivi, ghalkemm ir-regolamenti l-godda jitkellmu dwarhom f’ghadd ta’ artikli. Is-sistema wzata bhalissa tishaq aktar fuq il-kastigi milli fuq l-incentivi. Din hi sistema hazina li tgharraq is-sitwazzjoni ta’ habsi aktar milli qatt tista’ tghinnu.

Il-principju li jrid jintuza fis-sistema ta’ l-incentivi huwa dan: ippremja mgieba tajba biex tevita l-imgieba hazina. Il-habs taghna bhalissa ftit ihaddem dan il-principju.

Incentiv mhuwiex privilegg

Dan li se jinghad issa jserrah hafna fuq il-Woolf Report. Il-Woolf Report inhareg mill-Imhallef Woolf fl-1991 in vista tar-riforma penitenzjarja u karcerarja ta’ l-Ingilterra uWales. Ir-Report huwa l-aktar dokument awtorevoli fl-Ewropa fil-qasam tal-habs f’dawn l-ahhar 100 sena.

Hemm hwejjeg fil-habs li jissejhu ‘privileggi’. Hija kelma mill-aktar zbaljata fic-cirkustanzi. Il-Woolf Report kien qal espressament li dawn il-hwejjeg “should not be described as privileges”. Bi ‘privilegg’ normalment nifhmu xi vantagg moghti lil xi hadd bi grazzja specjali.

Il-‘privileggi’ huma affarijiet li ghandhom jitqiesu bhala mehtiega fil-hajja tal-habs. Nghidu ahna, jissejjah ‘privilegg‘ li wiehed icempel darba kuljum lill-familja tieghu, jew li wiehed jiltaqa’ mal-familja tieghu darba fil-gimgha taht skorta, jew li jzomm radju jew television ckejken fic-cella tieghu, jew anki li habsi johrog jahdem bla skorta fl-ahhar tliet xhur tas-sentenza tieghu.

Il-‘privilegg’, allura, jissejjah tali ghaliex jista’ jigi rrevokat bhala kastig ghal xi reat kontra d-dixxiplina tal-habs.

Il-Woolf Report jghid li “these facilities should be part of a prisoner’s normal expectation”. Dan huwa ’l boghodminndak li jezisti llum fil-habs ta’Malta. Imma din kienet ukoll is-sitwazzjoni fl-Ingilterra uWalesqabel il-bidliet li ppropona l-Imhallef Woolf.

Infatti, ir-Report jghid hekk: “A system of incentives cannot be grafted onto the system of ‘privileges’. A system of minor incentives would be hard to administer fairly and without fear of prejudice. Incentives should be built into the prison system”.

s Il-HOME LEAVE ‘privilegg iehor’? Kif qal il-Woolf Report is-sistema ta’ incentivi u s-sistema ta’ ‘privileggi’ m’ghandhomx jithaddmu flimkien. Is-sistema tal-‘privileggi’ wzata bhalissa hija antikwata u, kif qal il-Woolf Report stess, “the discretion allowed to governors to grant and withdraw selected ‘priveleges’ has left prisoners aggreved, and with some justification”.

Il-HOME LEAVE m’huwiex privilegg iehor, imma ncentiv serju u qawwi biex jippremja mgieba tajba u jevita mgieba hazina. Huwa ncentiv ta’ effikacja kbira ghax imiss l-gherq ta’ hafna problemi f’salt, l-aktar minhabba l-konsegwenzi koroh li ggib il-firda mill-familja.

Problemi mahluqa mill-firda mill-familja

Il-firda mill-familja:

  • Tohloq problemi ta’ nuqqas ta’ sfog sesswali kemm fil-habsi kif ukoll fil-persuni qrib tieghu matrimonjalment u affettivament
  • Taghmel lill-ulied isiru strangieri ghal missierhom jew ommhom, u bil-maqlub
  • Tinkoraggixxi l-infedelta’ matrimonjali
  • Tiffacilita’ in-nuqqas ta’ gharfien tal-problemi familjari min-naha tal-habsi
  • Tenfasizza n-nuqqas ta’ appogg min-naha tal-habsi fit-toqol tal-familja
  • Tkabbar is-sens ta’ izolament tal-persuni matrimonjalment jew affettivament qrib il-habsi
  • Izzid is-sens ta’ htija fil-habsi
  • Tfarrak il-familji

Il-HOME LEAVE f’pajjizi ohra

Is-sistema tal-HOME LEAVE, ghalkemm tissejjah b’suriet differenti (“conjugal visits” u l-bqija), tithaddem b’success f’pajjizi ohra hafna akbarminntaghna fejn is-sitwazzjoni hija ferm aktar kumplessaminntaghna. F’certi pajjizi, il-verzjoni taghhom tal-HOME LEAVE sahansitra ssir minghajr l-iskorta.

Il-Woolf Report kien favur li sistemi bhal dawn jinghataw aktar spazji. “Home leave should be extended,” jghid ir-Report, “Home leave should not be confined just to long term prisoners. Home leave restores prisoners’ self-confidence, helps maintain family relationships, and is an incentive to behave well in prison. It also eases pressure on prisoners and on staffing.” Ir-Report jinsisti li “provision should be made for private family visits for prisoners serving long sentences”.

Is-socjeta’ taghna hi wahda li thobb il-familja u tghozz il-gabra u l-ghaqda taghha. Il-HOME LEAVE huwa mezz kif il-familji tal-habsin ma jitfarrkux, izda jkomplu jissahhu ghall-gid taghhom infushom u ghas-socjeta’ Maltija kollha.

Effects of incarceration

/in /by

Effects of incarceration
on prisoners’ families

Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl compiled the following lists from its actual experience, over a 10-year span, with prisoners’ families. They are presented here without any particular order.

 

Effects on prisoners’ families in general:

  • Incarceration is experienced as if some member of the family died
  • The roles within the family change
  • Personal interest in the members of the same family increases
  • Other members of the extended family begin to get involved in the life of the nuclear family
  • Free time diminishes (due to new and added commitments)
  • The children (of an incarcerated parent) end up with no role-figures (if this, incidentally, is not for the better)
  • The children (of an incarcerated parent) show signs of instability
  • The children (of an incarcerated parent) show a lack of ethics in their sexual behaviour (and sometimes desire to leave the home early)
  • The children (of an incarcerated parent) show symptoms of problematic behaviour, such as:
    • Act like little children;
    • Do things that children much younger do (such as wetting their bed, sucking their thumb, etc.);
    • Argue a lot;
    • Clink to the parent at home (in such a way that they try not to loose him/her from sight, due to the fear of not seeing him/her again);
    • Began to be aggressive;
    • Cause trouble more frequently;
    • Fear being with people they do not know very well; and
    • Become restless.
  • Mothers (of incarcerated sons or daughters) feel cheated or robbed of their children.
  • Mothers (of incarcerated sons or daughters) experience great fear (or anxiety) from what might happen to their kids in goal (conscious that the prisons change people, generally for the worse)
  • Increase in religious faith (and in God)
  • Members of the extended family consider support given to the prisoner (from the nuclear family) as irrational or ridiculous

Effects on interpersonal relationships:

  • Parents (of incarcerated sons or daughters) begin to idealise their incarcerated kids (due to the fact of their separation)
  • Love between the non-incarcerated members and the person in goal increases
  • Increase in the desire that the familiar love with the prisoner does not ever come to an end
  • The non-incarcerated members develop a sense of guilt, as if they had some responsibility in the crime of their relative (or as if they could have done something to avoid the crime, and did not)
  • They also sometimes develop a sense of shyness before their relative- prisoner
  • They experience a sense of shame while in public due to their blood-relation to a prisoner
  • They experience a conflict of sentiments (anger/mercy; hate/love) towards others, especially their incarcerated relative
  • They find some difficulty during visits to their incarcerated relative, in such a way that they mentally plan the meeting, and consciously decide beforehand what to mention to him/her and what to pass by in silence

Effects on the finances of prisoners’ families:

  • A salary is lost (if the incarcerated part is a parent)
  • A considerable increase in expenses due to things that will have to be taken constantly to the prisons
  • Less pocket-money for sons and daughters
  • Less spending-money for the family
  • Payment of exuberant fees to lawyers
  • Sometimes the family has to pay also the fines imposed by the courts on their incarcerated relative (so s/he would not do extra periods in goal)

Effects on the relationship of prisoners’ families with institutions:

  • Parents (of incarcerated sons and daughters) feel frustrated due to their sense of powerlessness before the destiny of their kids
  • The members of the family avoid talking about the incarceration of their relative due to the fear of bad effects — goal, incarceration, and the like, become taboo subjects
  • The day, and the moment itself, of the declaration of the prison sentence of their relative becomes a trauma for the close relations of the sentenced
  • The family feels completely lost in the judicial bureaucratic system
  • The family feels disappointed with the system
  • The family looses heart when they realise that their sons and daughters are in the hands of an unfeeling institution or system, such as the courts and the prisons
  • The children (of incarcerated parents) begin to show lack of respect towards any authority
  • The children (of incarcerated parents) show signs of academic proficiency, especially if they are of a young (primary-level) stage

Social effects on prisoners’ families:

  • The family is discussed in public
  • A sense of shame
  • A feeling that the members of the family are somehow guilt too of the crime committed
  • A possibility that fear of the “criminal” is also extended to the whole family
  • A sense of isolation from neighbours (which, though real, may not be altogether realistic) due to the fact that the family of a prisoner is considered a degradation for the neighbourhood
  • Isolation of the children (of incarcerated parents) due to the fact that they are considered unworthy of other “normal” children
  • The children (of incarcerated parents) begin to show some anti-social behaviour
  • Sometimes other members of the community consider support given to the prisoner (from his/her nuclear family) as irrational or ridiculous

 

 

 

Verzjoni bil-Malti

 

Effetti ta’ l-inkarcerazzjoni
fuq il-familja tal-prigunier

Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl ghamlet din il-gabra mill-esperjenza taghha, twil mal-10 snin, mal-familji tal-prigunieri. Il-gabra hija pprezentata hawnhekk minghajr xi ordni partikulari.

 

Effetti fuq il-familja b’mod generali

  • Il-karcerazzjoni titqies bhallikieku miet xi hadd fil-familja.
  • Jinbidlu r-rwoli tal-membri tal-familja.
  • Jizdiet l-istress fil-membri tal-familja.
  • Fil-hajja tal-familja jibdew jigu nvoluti wkoll membri ohra mill-familja estiza.
  • Jonqos il-hin liberu (minhabba impenji godda u zejda).
  • L-ulied (ta’ xi genitur inkarcerat) jisfaw minghajr role-figures (sakemm ma jkunx ahjar ghalihom).
  • L-ulied (ta’ xi genitur inkarcerat) juru nuqqas ta’ stabbiltà.
  • L-ulied (ta’ xi genitur inkarcerat) juru laxkezza fl-etika sesswali taghhom (u xi kultant xewqa ta’ tluq kmieni mid-dar).
  • L-ulied (ta’ xi genitur inkarcerat) juru sintomi ta’ agir problematiku, bhal: jagixxu b’mod immatur; jaghmlu affarijiet li generalment jaghmlu tfal izghar minnhom (jaghmlu f’soddtuhom, jerdghu subghajhom, u l-bqija); jarguentaw hafna; jiddendlu mal-genitur mhux inkarcerat (b’mod li ma jafdax in-nuqqas taghha/tieghu); isiru aggressivi; joholqu l-inkwiet ta’ spiss; jibzghu joqghodu ma’ nies li ma jafuhomx sew; u ma jkollhom kwiet imkien.
  • Ommijiet (ta’ wlied inkarcerati) jhossuhom cheated jew misruqaminnuliedhom.
  • Ommijiet (ta’ wlied inkarcerati) jhossu bizgha (jew anzjetà) akbar fuq dak li se jsirminnuliedhom (konxji hafna li l-habs jibdel in-nies: ghall-ahjar? ghall-aghar?).
  • Zieda fil-fidi (u f’Alla).
  • Appogg lill-habsi mill-parti mhux inkarcerata titqies irrazzjonali jew redikolaminnmembri ohra tal-familja estiza.

Effetti fuq ir-relazzjonijiet interpersonali

  • Il-genituri (ta’ wlied inkarcerati) jibdew jidealizzaw lil uliedhom (minhabba li jkunu ’l boghod minnhom).
  • Tikber l-imhabba bejn il-parti mhux inkarcerata u l-habsi.
  • Tikber ir-rieda li r-rabta (familjari, ta’ mhabba) mal-habsi tibqa’ shiha (u ma tispiccax).
  • Sens li l-parti mhux inkarcerata ghandha xi sehem fil-htija u r-responsabbiltà tar-reat tal-habsi.
  • Sens ta’ misthija tal-parti mhux inkarcerata quddiem il-habsi.
  • Sens ta’ htija minhabba semplici assocjazzjoni (familjari) mal-habsi.
  • Konflitt ta’ sentimenti (rabja/hniena; mibgheda/imhabba).
  • Diffikultà fil-laqghat mal-habsi: il-laqgha mieghu tigi mentalment ippjanata; isiru decizjonijiet konxji ta’ x’ghandu jinghad lilu jew le.

Effetti fuq il-finanzi tal-familja

  • Tintilef paga (jekk genitur).
  • Zieda konsiderevoli ta’ spejjez ghall-habs.
  • Anqas flus ghall-ulied.
  • Hlasijiet kbar ghall-avukati.

Effetti fuq ir-relazzjoni tal-familja ma’ l-istituzzjonijiet

  • Il-genituri (ta’ wlied inkarcerati) jhossu frustrazzjoni gej mis-sens ta’ powerlessness quddiem id-destin ta’ wliedhom.
  • Il-membri tal-familja jibzghu jitkellmu dwar l-inkarcerazzjoni minhabba bizgha ta’ effetti hziena (il-habs, l-inkarcerazzjoni, jsiru taboo subjects).
  • Il-jum, u l-mument innifsu, tal-ghoti tas-sentenza johloq trawma fil-genitur/mara/ragel ta’ l-issentenjat.
  • Il-familja thossha mitlufa fis-sistema burokratika.
  • Il-familja thossha ddizappuntata mis-sistema.
  • Il-familja thossha taqa’ qalbha meta l-ulied jaqghu f’idejn istituzzjoni/sistema bierda.
  • L-ulied jibdew juru nuqqas ta’ rispett lejn kull awtorità.
  • L-ulied ikollhom nuqqas ta’ success akkademiku.

Effetti socjali tal-familja

  • Il-familja tibda tigi diskussa fil-pubbliku.
  • Sens ta’ misthija
  • Sens li l-membri tal-familja huma hatja wkoll.
  • Periklu kbir li l-bizgha mill-’kriminal’ tiga estiza wkoll ghall-familja kollha.
  • Sens ta’ izolament mill-girien (li, ghalkemm reali, jista’ ma jkunx realistiku) minhabba li l-familja tal-habsi titqies degradazzjoni tal-hâra (tan-neighbourhood).
  • Izolament ta’ l-ulied tal-habsi minhabba li ma jixirqux (unworthy) li t-tfal jaghmulha maghhom.
  • L-ulied jibdew juru attitudnijiet anti-socjali.
  • Appogg lill-habsi mill-parti mhux inkarcerata titqies irrazzjonali jew redikolaminnhaddiehor.

Kawza kontra sentenza tal-Ghomor minghajr Parowl

/in , /by

Il-Qorti Kostituzzjonali ordnat li l-prigunier Tunezin Ben Ali Wahid, fi zmien xahar jitressaq quddiem il-Bord tal-Parowl biex jiddetermina jekk ghandux jinghata l-Parowl, wara li diga skonta 30 sena habs. Il-Fondazzjoni Mid-Dlam Ghad-Dawl laqghet bi pjacir din id-decizjoni storika, u kienet strumentali biex Wahid ikun jista’ jiftah din il-kawza.

Wahid, flimkien ma prigunier iehor kienu nstabu hatja li fl-1988 qatlu 4 persuni, fosthom 2 xufiera tat-taxis. Ghaldaqstant inghataw piena ta’ ghomor il-habs li f’Malta litteralment tfisser ghomor. Wara s-sentenza kostituzzjonali, inholoq mekkanizmu li bih, prigunieri li jkunu sentenzjati ghal ghomorhom fil-habs, jistghu japplikaw ghal parowl, wara li jkunu skontaw 30 sena.