Italian prisons: facing the crisis

Claudio Paterniti. At least 10 inmates have tested positive for COVID-19 to date. One hundred and thirty sanitary isolation wards were set up in 86 penal institutions. As of 24 March, 260 inmates suspected to have contracted the virus were quarantined there.

The “solutions” adopted by the government regarding prison policies during the coronavirus pandemic were merged into the Cura-Italia decree (legislative decree no. 18/2020), published in the Official Journal on 17 March 2020. Before that, the COVID-19 state of emergency had been declared on23 February, but there had been no regulatory intervention on prisons. All measures were adopted with lower rank rules, in particular memos from the department for administration and the department for juvenile and community justice (Dipartimento per l’Amministrazione e del Dipartimento per la Giustiziaminorile e di comunità).

The memos were intended to contain and manage the epidemiological emergency, “closing” the prison to all potential sources of external contagion.

As a result, therapeutic activities for which access for the external community was expected or required were suspended; external and internal labour activities were limited; and access to external educators, volunteers and trainers was suspended. But the measure with the greatest impact (and emotional toll) on the prisoners was the suspension of visits from family members or third parties other than lawyers. These calls were replaced – when the necessary technical tools were available – with remote conversations via Skype or WhatsApp, and with more phone calls than usual. With the growing spread of the virus, additional interventions were put in place regarding the use of masks and personal protective equipment by staff. Pre-triage tents were set up at prison entrances, and extra disinfectant was supplied.

The lack of central regulation left the initiative to individual regional boards or managements, with a heterogeneous implementation. Thus certain interpretations were more permissive, and others were more restrictive.¹.

This series of measures only concerned the internal organization and contacts with the outside world. They failed to address the crucial question: how to lower the prisoner population so as to reduce the risk of infection linked to overcrowding and reduce the risk of contagion related to the overcrowding.The interventions stated in the decree were only applicable to prisoners with final conviction. They excluded all prisoners in pre-trial detention or awaiting the final judgment of their sentence –totalling about 30% of all inmates.

The first of the two interventions in the Cura-Italia decree concerned house arrest (art. 123, legislative decree no. 18/2020). As a rule, no new prisons are created, except when permitted by law no. 199/2010. This“empty prisons“law (svuotacarceri), had initially been adopted as a temporary deflationary measure, before being fully integrated to the system in 2014. It planned that prisoners with a sentence (even a residual one) of 18 months could carry it out at their home or anyother place, public or private, that would welcome them. But thelaw set stringent exclusionsto those eligible to the alternative measure. The intervention of the legislator did nothing but reiterate the possibility of serving the last 18 months of one’s sentence at home, simply intervening on the exclusions posed by “empty prisons”. Some exclusions were removed, others were added,until 30 June 2020. The new decree also planned easier procedures, lightening the workload of the administration staff and significantly shortening the decision time.
The second intervention (art. 124) had even less impact than the first. Applicable to prisoners on parole leaving the prison for work on day release, it allows them to stay home at night instead of returning in detention after work. The decree is valid until 30 June 2020.

CP. These were serious acts of violence that led to the death of 14 prisoners, an unprecedented event in the history of the Italian republic. The reasons lie on one hand in the suspension of all activities and contact with the outside world, particularly with family members. On the other hand, prisoners feared the spread of the virus in prison, in facilities known to be overcrowded and unsanitary, making them a breeding ground for bacteria. On top of all that, there was a lack of adequate protective supplies, such as masks, gloves and hygiene products.

The prisoner population reacted to the contrast between the measures taken against their family members and the ones lacking to prevent the infection that could be spread by prison police staff.

In addition, the information available to prisoners on what was happening outside was insufficient. Antigone was informed about the deaths in prisons, but also received reports of violence in prison facilities. We reacted by presenting the complaints to the competent public prosecutors.

CP. These are the proposals we developed to overcome the isolation of prisoners, decrease the overcrowding without safety repercussions, and protect workers:

• Reducing the number of prisoners and protecting the most vulnerable Extension of the probation to people whose health problems risked being aggravated by COVID-19, and for the purpose of therapeutic assistance; extension of the eligibility of house arrest without restriction to vulnerable prisoners; permission for all prisoners on parole to spend the night under house arrest; extension of house arrest possibilities and extension of early release up to 75 days per half year.

• Reducing the isolation of prisoners in this very difficult phase Provision by the management of each facility of one smartphone per hundred inmates. A mobile data plan covered by the administration must allow, under the supervision of a prison police officer, a daily phone or video call lasting up to 20 minutes per prisoner, to pre-authorized cell numbers and landlines. Email correspondence must be made possible for relatives authorized to visit.

• Preventing infection and supporting prison staff Immediate, extra supply of PPE for all prison staff; immediate and progressive sanitation of all prison spaces starting with communal areas, from those used as barracks, personnel offices and warehouses, to others used for manufacturing; immediate plan for hiring extra prison staff; making prison health a core concern of national health policies, through the recruitment of additional doctors, nurses and socio-health workers to provide healthcare in prison; implementation of health and prevention plans for each facility.

The process, principles and purposes stated in the current law must be resumed and strengthened: the quality and consistency of the interventions and health services for prisoners, internees and minors subject to restrictive measures must be guaranteed.