The Eye of a Needle: Temporary Prison Leave in Ukraine

Anton Symkovych

doi:10.1007/s10610-019-09433-3

Abstract

Although temporary prison leave humanises custodial punishment, offsets its negative effects, and prepares prisoners for (re)integration into wider society, its use proves to be controversial and uneven across jurisdictions. Since the collapse of the USSR, the former Soviet countries have been pursuing different criminal justice policies, liberalising some penal practices whilst retaining many punitive Soviet legacies. Through analysis of the legal provisions regulating temporary prison leave and official statistics in Ukraine, I demonstrate the apparent strain between the official policies and practice. Whilst legally available, temporary leave for prisoners in closed prisons is almost never granted in this Eastern European country. I argue that for Ukraine to reconcile the official rhetoric of rehabilitation and social reintegration of offenders and actual implementation of penal policies, the country must reverse the underlying requirements governing temporary prison leave and expand its use.

Highlights

Since restoring its independence in 1991, Ukraine has been on the path of democratisation
To break with its Gulag past, and in order to receive financial, technical, and political support from the ‘West’, Ukraine has acceded to the Council of Europe and all major human rights instruments
The Council of Europe recommends making temporary leave an integral part of a custodial sentence (Council of Europe 1982; European Prison Rules 2006: Rule 103.6), the position in Ukraine suggests that temporary leave constitutes a legal privilege available to a tiny fraction of prisoners

Summary

Introduction

Since restoring its independence in 1991, Ukraine has been on the path of democratisation. The data from prisons’ positive responses and the statistics supplied by the two regions suggest that temporary leave remains an exceptional measure available to a limited number of prisoners: mostly to those in ‘open’ prisons and sometimes to those living in minimum-security closed prisons with relaxed conditions. A minimum-security prison with relaxed conditions that housed 111 first-time male offenders convicted of non-premeditated crimes reported 76 cases of leave for 14 days, together with 4 cases of temporary leave on medical grounds and 4 cases of temporary leave granted to attend funerals. One medium-security prison housing 260 first-time male offenders, with 27 in its pre-release sector, reported 10 cases of temporary leave, including 4 granted as an incentive. Apparent reluctance to supply data and the available numbers suggest that prison leave is an extraordinary measure in Ukraine to which the vast majority of prisoners have no recourse, either on humanitarian grounds, or as a part of a sentence plan

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion