'The United Nations developed a set of standards for prisons – the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners' Photo: Photo: Thomas Galvez / flickr CC.
The treatment of prisoners
Kimmett Edgar, of the Prison Reform Trust, urges Friends to support a revision of standards for prisons
1955. Anthony Eden was elected prime minister. Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. Elvis Presley made his first television appearance. And the United Nations developed a set of standards for prisons – the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (or SMR for short). The SMR have remained substantially the same since 1955. In 2010, the United Nations took the decision to review them, to determine whether progress (both in human rights and in prison practice) required updating the rules. Rachel Brett, representing the Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) in Geneva, and I, representing the Friends World Committee for Consultation (FWCC), have provided a Quaker input into the process.
The SMR encapsulated the ideals of the time. They established that the treatment of prisoners should encourage self-respect. They called for the separation of young from adult prisoners, males from females and untried from convicted prisoners. Prison authorities were expected to facilitate regular contact with families.
A need for change
But there are clear indications of a need for change. The 1955 text does not explicitly prohibit torture or degrading treatment; people who have mental health needs are referred to as ‘insane and mentally abnormal’; by implication, the rules permit a reduced diet as punishment.
There have also been significant developments since 1955 in human rights and prison standards. In particular, the UN adopted supplementary standards for women offenders (the Bangkok Rules) in 2010, a recognition that the SMR had given inadequate attention to prisoners’ gender. FWCC contributed to the development of these rules and Rachel Brett took part in the expert meeting that drafted them.
Since 2010, the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice has identified areas in the SMR that need revision and begun to gather proposals for new wording. The pace has been slow, there have been setbacks along the way, and each step requires detailed analysis.
For example, it was decided early on that any changes to the SMR should not lower existing standards. Later, an expert group meeting summarised the consensus to date, but omitted this commitment. Rachel Brett spotted the omission; we argued that the criterion was crucial to the revision and succeeded in amending the text. If there was no guarantee that new rules would not lower existing standards, then there was a risk that revision would, ultimately, result in worse prison conditions.
Contributing ideas
The SMR revision has involved two meetings of experts, with a third one scheduled for early 2014. Rachel and I have been active participants in these, applying our knowledge of human rights and prison conditions. Each year since 2010 the process has been discussed by the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. There have been separate meetings of nongovernmental organisations (including FWCC/QUNO, Amnesty International, Penal Reform International and Human Rights Watch).
We have contributed ideas across the full range of prison treatment and conditions, but we have based our written submissions, firstly, on preventing violence and, secondly, on meeting the needs of the children of imprisoned parents. These are available on the FWCC website.
Perhaps surprisingly, the 1955 SMR did not require prisons to be safe. We proposed a new SMR:
States shall ensure the safety and personal security of prisoners from exploitation, abuse and violence.
We added that prisons should do this by recording all assaults; investigating serious incidents of violence; training staff in preventing violence; and considering greater use of conflict resolution.
Dependent children
Our submission on the children of imprisoned parents is based on pioneering research on their needs by Oliver Robertson, who was then at QUNO Geneva. We propose that all decisions in criminal justice concerning a parent should take into account the possible impact on dependent children. Decisions regarding whether the child should stay with a parent in prison should be based on the best interests of the child. And for those children not in prison with a parent, we propose that states should ensure regular contact, with visits offered in a positive environment; and that prisons should consult with dependent children about the effect that the parent’s release will have on them.
The SMR remain the primary international measure of the treatment of prisoners. So it is vital for monitoring prisons worldwide that the new rules uphold the values of human dignity. The challenge is to establish new standards that are both achievable and demanding, and which cover very diverse places of detention in different countries.
Speaking truth to power requires our presence in meetings held on different continents, and our attendance is not fully covered by FWCC’s budget for United Nations work. The work needs support. We are grateful to the Community Justice Group of Mid-Thames Area Meeting and the Pollard and Dixon Trust for making it possible for us to attend the 2012 expert meeting.
Quakers can, with support, make a difference and contribute further to the process of revising standards that will govern prisons for years to come.
Kimmett is head of research at the Prison Reform Trust.
For further information: http://www.fwccworld.org/qstatement.html
