France: single-occupancy cells are possible

Flavie Rault. The SNDP was created in 2010. It is unique in that since 2014, its members are not only prison directors (DSP, directeurs de services pénitentiaires), but also directors of the Penitentiary Integration and Probation Department (DPIP, * directeurs pénitentiaires d’insertion et de probation*). In terms of unions, we are the second largest DSP union besides the original FO Direction (FOD), created in 1977. The union landscape is more fragmented at DPIP level, the National Union of Prison Service Personnel (SNEPAP, Syndicat National de l’Ensemble des Personnels de l’Administration Pénitentiaire) and the National Union of Penitentiary Integration and Probation Directors (UNDPIP, Union Nationale des Directeurs Pénitentiaires d’Insertion et de Probation) being our main competitors. However, we became the primary union, receiving 35% of the votes, in the last elections, the first elections in which we had participated.

As public service administrators, we believe that we have a right, even an obligation, to keep citizens and their representatives informed on this sector as well as the challenges we face.

Combining heads of prison facilities and Penitentiary Integration and Probation Department (SPIP, Service Pénitentiaire d’Insertion et Probation) directors in one union is unconventional and innovative in the prison world. It is a political choice for us to assert that these two groups of directors from the same administration perform the same type of work. We support merging them into one body. This will permit us to take paths that are far less linear. In 2013-2014, we were looked upon as oddballs. Today, not only is the Minister looking at the idea, but it was also brought up in February 2020 in Thiriez’s report on modernising the Public Service. Regardingnumerus clausus¹, we are not stuck on any particular position, or even ideological. We are pragmatic and believe that if the structure is relatively informal in terms of positions and staff, the policy will not be respected. If we do not insist on a maximum number of occupants in a given facility, we won’t succeed.

My colleagues and I envision a maximum limit to prison capacity. We need to make the case more public. It’s possible to limit the occupation rate to a maximum of 100 to 110 %.

When it reaches 100 %, we will pressure for the release of an adequate number of people under suitable conditions. This will permit us to be flexible and will not jeopardise prison conditions or the work of officers. We will also adopt the recommendations of the Federation of Reflection-Action, Prison and Justice Associations (FARAPEJ, Fédération des associations réflexion-action prison et justice ) in its report on prison over-population. This would mean setting up a group of people in each Court of Appeal region as soon as the set occupation rate is surpassed. The group would consist of sentence enforcement judges, the SPIP, the head of the facility and the public prosecutor. This process has been successfully implemented for the health crisis.

FR. No, they are not the only ones at fault. We see great inequalities between the positions occupied and individuals. The judiciary body, as specified by the Constitution, operates very differently from other administrative bodies as it is independent. We are public servants, they are judges. They have more freedom. This creates problems when set public policies are applied through political power. This aims to lower the prison population. Judges can use the legislation at their disposal to either reach this objective or refuse to do so. As public servants, we have a very hierarchical structure.

We follow orders like good little soldiers. We are taken hostage, as are prisoners, by some judges who refuse to implement the proposed policy reforms.

The judges have a great responsibility. If they are not in favour of implementing the proposed reforms, we wait for them to propose alternative solutions. The prison system cannot operate like this. We are creating a justice system that is ineffective, even counterproductive. Judges should seize this opportunity to facilitate progress.

The second, most important responsibility is political. Public safety and prison policy particularly affect our fellow citizens. There is very little political will to change attitudes. The improved and ambitious Taubira reform was one that required us to work even harder to educate people and to move public opinion forward. All the other reforms were minor; long, incomprehensible and overly complex texts.

We need to make the public understand our issues. Prison is not the solution to everything. It is sometimes counter-productive and ineffective. The media, politicians, civil society, organizations and unions need to grasp this. We all have a real responsibility.

The death penalty no longer exists but it took political will to make it happen. The real challenge is to convince the public that it has everything to gain by making this mental leap forward. It requires the right amount of effort, at the right time, for the right person.

FR. It won’t be anything spectacular. We show our determination as a union, as well as staff members of this administration, by raising the issue with politicians, our superiors, and our organisational partners. We want to make enough noise on this topic so that all of civil society can hear us.

It is not a rebellion, we simply want to see this issue through to the end.

Hierarchically, we are obliged to take people in who should be imprisoned. If we refused, we would not last very long and would be charged with professional misconduct. In the long term, this would not solve very much; we would create tension instead of creating dialogue. The answer is not preventing entry because of over-population, but in choosing what needs to be decriminalized, refusing the use of short sentencing, modifying our legal arsenal. We know how to pressure for releases, recently seen with the liberation of 10,000 prisoners. We can do even more by giving more meaning to releases.