• What inspired you to write this book? What themes are covered in it?

The book is the product of an invitation to speak at a conference at the Peruvian University Cesar Vallejo where I teach. I intended to compare the penitentiary situation in Uruguay and Peru since both countries are in the process of reforming their prisons. This forced me to take a deep look at the Uruguayan case that began in 2010. As I pursued this investigation, the book was born out of the extent of the topic.

• What was your expectation of the reform in 2010?

The expectations were high because the Uruguayan penitentiary system has undergone three reform processes in the course of its history. The first corresponds with Uruguay’s entrance into “modernity”, a shift from the classic model of correction that was derived from the revolutions taking place in the penitentiary systems of Europe and the United States. Then, in the 30s, there was a second attempt to improve the penitentiary system nationallyand incorporate what was then referred to as “penitentiary science”. The 2010 instance is the third great historical attempt that aimed - in addition to unifying the system - to incorporate developments in human rights and prison. The book narrates a genealogy of the reform, starting with an analysis of the organisations that oversee adherence to human rights and reports from the Ministry of the Interior.

• If you had to weigh the positive and the negative, what would be the most important points?

There is a chapter in the book dedicated to doing just that; it is titled “Disparities and Ambiguities.” The reform has a set of disparities that can be logically be allotted to the historical differences between prison units. Then we have the ambiguities, produced by the substance of the ongoing reform, not specifically in prisons, but in the strategic management of the reform.

In my opinion, the most severe outcome (thoroughly covered in the book) was the institution of a solitary confinement policy within one of the prisons. This policy not only violates all the human rights conventions relating to prisoners, but also incorporates in the strategic line of the reform what is known as the “new penology.”

Critics of the Spanish reform justifiably qualify tis area of study, understood as the current development in the United States and Europe, especially in England, as “free market criminology” and warn about the impact it has had on penitentiary sciences, particularly in what is known as “prison actuarialism” and risk management when deciding the degree of prisoner access to human rights.

• What do you think drove the Ministry of the Interior to take that route?

There are two processes at play, which, although different, end up acting together. The first is explained, in my opinion, by the commitments of Uruguay at international level particularly with the Inter-American Development Bank and the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation, concerning advisory services for development of the reform. This involved the core components of the reform. It introduced orientation and training processes from abroad, and incorporated concepts that distanced the reform from historical conditions in Uruguay. This influence over the strategic management of the reforms was a form of intellectual colonisation.
The second process is linked to the rise of a punitive mentality in Uruguay since the end of the 90s.

In other words, harsher sentences and rhetoric that promoted deterrence and the reduction of “prison privileges” (early or conditional releases, editor’s note).

These two processes blocked any appearance of revolution (i.e. transformation) and followed the path of those countries that give this kind of advice (the United States, England and Spain).

We could also cite the Chilean case where a public-private prison served as a paradigm of best practices regarding prison privatisation when in reality it has been heavily criticised even by commissions of inquiry of the Chilean Congress. There is a chapter in the book titled “Quo Vadis INR” about the institution that runs all the prisons in Uruguay, that sheds light on the diversions that the reform has taken during a journey that can only be considered as uncertain, given the current state of affairs and the reports of the organisations overseeing human rights.

• How is this punitive policy perceived?

The rate of incarceration in Uruguay is one of the highest in Latin America. The general population is fairly ambiguous about it. People may not feel solidarity when they hear of the extremely degrading practices toward prisoners; however, many are quite happy that prison conditions are as they are because “that is what criminals deserve”. This is what feeds the punitive emotional mood in Uruguay, in the words of David Garland towards Uruguayan punitiveness.

• Do you think that cannabis legalisation had an impact on the penitentiary system?

I think the two reforms are going in opposite directions. Despite the fact that outside the prisons the measure was seen as revolutionary, bold and fearless, there was no impact within. Even when we analyse the changes in number of arrests as a result of Drug Law reform, there is no indication that we are adopting less repressive practices relating to drugs. I think it’s going to affect areas other than prisons. The use of cannabis in prison remains a criminal offence; in fact, when the Ministry of the Interior seizes any substance, from family members or prisoners, it publishes on its website information about the person and item confiscated regardless of quantity. It’s as if we are living two different and parallel situations.

• Has the reform brought any positive contribution? What prospects does it have today?

The reform has allowed the development of what is called, in fairly ambiguous terms, best practice. It is rather strange to call something as basic as respect for the human rights of prisoners “best practice”. But that is what is called in international jargon…

In that sense, the reform made it possible to initiate new practices that differed from traditional prison management. This is a double-edged sword because, simultaneously, those leading the reform use these spaces as an excuse to say that the changes are on the path towards a reform respectful of human rights.

This needs to be taken with caution. On the downside, the reform has lost its way and has not moved its initial agenda forward. At the beginning of the reform the agenda was quite clear, now it lacks optimism and has not been revitalised. Additionally, I think the reform is not capable of exmining itself critically. There has been a sense of inertia, and the data produced by the Ministry of the Interior - the book illustrates it well - presents a situation concerning education, access to employment, and prisoners’ living conditions that are quite like that in the past before the reforms began.

• Do you think that the reform was a step backwards rather than a step forward for detention conditions in Uruguay?

In its initial stages, the reform was an important step forward or at least the hope of creating the conditions necessary for a major step forward. I think that now those conditions have disappeared and setbacks are emerging which are moreserious politically than in the past, because they are driven by the reforms themselves. Previously, prison conditions could be attributed to the ideologies of the right. Today that is no longer possible because the situation within prisons is dysfunctional in spite of a left-wing ideology. I think that makes the problem more difficult.

• Is there a civil society initiative trying to bring the reform back to its original plan?

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Prison System, a technical adviser to Parliament who could also be called the Prison Ombudsman, put forward positive propositions, such as implementing linked public policies that involve several ministries not just the Ministry of the Interior. The Ministry of the Interior’s response to the criticism has been defensive. It is as if they are blinkered by their reform project and turn a deaf ear to those statements that, while critical, are intended as positive. That is to say that they are inviting other state bodies to help support and further develop the reform. I think that future reports by the Parliamentary Commissioner and the National Institute of Human Rights will gradually change their tone and be similar to the first documents published by the Parliamentary Commissioner, which were very critical.

• There is a political shift happening in Latin America, called by some the “turn to the right”. Do you think that the United States will play a larger role and that in the implementation of solitary confinement policies like the one in Uruguay will become more widespread?

The United States already plays a large role in Latin America; perhaps it is not as involved as it was in the 70s and early 80s when the region was experiencing a wave of civil-military dictatorships, as was the case in Uruguay. However, the Federal Bureau of Prisons of the United States does offer a lot of advice.

They present their system as a model to follow and invite us to adhere to American protocols and measures without understanding the origins of the discussions – I have in mind the historical cases of Philadelphia and Oakwood - ignoring all the damage that the North American way of thinking has had in the region.

We need to generate a process of reform for prisons in Latin America that is true to our history and that does not constantly look to developed models from the United States and Europe.

In reality these countries are severely criticised. The United States is far from being a model…

Of course, assuming that they are models. This is similar to the discussion that is taking place now between Spain and Belgium for example, regarding the declaration of independence of Catalonia. Belgium requested a report from Spain on the state of their prison system before agreeing to extradite Carles Puigdemont given that he was seeking political asylum. Then Spain, remembering the criticism that Belgian prisons had received, presented its penitentiary system as superior when this is manifestly not true. This can be seen by simply reviewing reports by the European Observatory of Prisons.

I am honoured that Prison Insider will be the first to publish my book. If any commercial gains come from this, they will, undoubtedly, go to Prison Insider. It is important to promote prisoners’ human rights because they are, people just like us at a very particular stage in their lives, and this is what particularly drives me.