ON. Haren Prison is due to open in 2022. It is intended for 1,190 people (men and women), with a monitoring, medical, and psychiatric centre. It is set to be the largest prison in Belgium. Currently, prisons have an average capacity of 300 beds. Three prisons are larger and the exception: Brussels (1,084 beds), Lantin (694 beds), and Bruges (626 beds). Haren is supposed to replace the Brussels prison but nothing is less certain about that. The opening of Marche-en-Famenne did not result in the announcement of the closing of the Namur, Dinant, and Huy prisons.
The prison service seems very enthusiastic about the project, which is being showcased as the “prison village of Haren.” It announced that people would be detained in small living units for about 30 people and that there would be magnetic badges providing access to their cells as well as other places.
Sports facilities, training spaces, and a building for prison workshops have been planned. Staff management will also need to change, with a difference between security personnel and personnel accompanying inmates. According to the prison service, all of this should allow for better detention conditions and a greater accountability of inmates.
Many actors from the judicial system, the Bar Association, and the neighbourhood and association committees that are involved in prison and environmental issues have however been opposed to this project. The “Platform to get out of the prison disaster” coalition was created “Haren Observatory”, a “defence zone” was established at the construction site (ZAD), and a book was published in order to address the struggle against this “maxi-prison,” as is in the association field.
Among the major criticisms made, we first recalled the missed opportunity to build a new prison; the extension of the prison estate never solved the issue of prison overcrowding. Some criticism is based on an abolitionist perspective. Next, the involvement of private companies is strongly condemned (some have been pinned as questionable) as well as the lack of transparency associated with the privatization[^Everything is fine].
[^Everything is fine]: See the media report “Everything is fine”.
Environmental criticism has also been important, as the prison construction involved destroying the Keelbeekarea area, 20 hectares of farmable land with significant biodiversity.
The prison location has also raised concerns: while the Brussels prison is located downtown in an area easily accessible by public transportation and close to the courthouse, this would not be the case for the Haren prison, located north of the district of the capital of Brussels. There is a risk that lawyers and relatives of prisoners will space out their visits, which are essential. The prison service stated that they were considering expanding access to their public transportation offerings, though there have been no guarantees. Moreover, just because the building is new, comfortable, and equipped with multiple infrastructures, it does not mean that the detention conditions will be better: what exactly will be the detention regime? How often can training and sports facilities be used? Who will have access to work, and under what conditions and how will they be paid? What will the visitation policy be (reservations, schedules, and access)?
All these questions remain unanswered. However, they are the ones that would define prison conditions. Researcher David Scheer talked about the “paradox of prison modernisation”: inmates often feel more comfortable in old, rundown, and unsanitary prisons rather than the new ones, which are considered colder. Automatic doors opening remotely, and cell “comfort” (phone, shower) drastically reduce the possibility of walking around and having human contact.
Infrastructure isn’t everything: though the Marche and Leuze prisons have the same infrastructure, detention regimes are different. The first one has an open and regressive regime while the second has a closed one. Because of this, special attention must be paid to the Haren detention regimes once it opens. Lastly, in light of the impending economic recession, its staggering cost coupled with notoriously inefficient incarceration measures begs the question: would these funds be of better use if they were invested in social and public health? By asking such a question, you are without a doubt answering it.
