Ethics in penitentiary care Applied ethics examines the ethical aspects of specific problems of human life, whether in everyday life or within professional activity. Through it, ethics remains in a close relationship with the real problems of human life and his profession. Within applied ethics, professional ethics can be distinguished, which applies general moral norms to a specific professional activity. To some extent, applied ethics moves from the academic environment to solving the ethical and moral problems of people that are related to their professional activities (Mátel, 2010, p. 8). In this sense we present the professional activities of personnel in institutions for the execution of custodial sentences, who participate in the process of penitentiary treatment. These are members of the Corps of Prison and Court Guard of the Slovak Republic assigned to the sentence-execution department. The requirements for their expertise in individual functions are high, because they directly affect the prison environment and its quality. Their joint activities can strengthen the goals of imprisonment or negate the efforts of those colleagues who promote a genuine interest in the resocialization of inmates and the minimization of the negative effects of the prison environment on the personality of the inmate. The exercise of state power and the purpose of imprisonment are two poles that seem almost incompatible if they fundamentally contradict each other in their forms of implementation. If the purpose of imprisonment is to strive for the correction of the inmate and his reintegration into society, then the main prerequisite for the success of penitentiary treatment is not only compliance with norms, but also the personality of the officer with such moral qualities that predestine him to fulfill the vision of the inmate's correction. It is precisely the manner and form of requiring compliance with norms that is a problem that can be addressed through professional ethics and by creating main ethical principles in the interaction between staff and inmate.

For the possible successful integration of inmates into civic life, through his activities and competencies he is the most important helper, guide, and supporter for the inmate, because through his work he is responsible for the realization of the rights and obligations of inmates entrusted to his care. The manner in which he performs his activities directly affects the inmate's current state. Under the assumption that his morality, which according to Mátel (2010, p. 10) "represents the rules of human behavior," is compatible with the professional values in social work, then the observance and application of these values are a possible prerequisite for being successful in one's profession in connection with the forms of treatment defined by Order No. 86/2009 in the Collection of Orders of the Director General of the Corps of Prison and Court Guard. We deliberately speak of values in social work, because precisely the methods and forms of social work are the main activities in the work of the educator, despite the fact that the methods and forms of social work appear in the standards exclusively in the function of social worker.

Professional Values

  1. A focus on serving people rather than on monetary gain or increased status
  2. Fair, considerate, optimal, and creative use of professional help, authority, and opportunities in relation to clients and other people.
  3. Responsibility for the competent, considerate, and ethical performance of professional functions.
  4. In relation to the public and social policy, advocating for matters concerning clients or one's own tasks.“ (Mátel, 2010, p. 81)

In relation to the first value listed for the educator, in practice we can speak of the role of counselor - social worker. According to Strieženec (1999, p. 19), "a social worker is a professional who possesses special prerequisites, qualities, and abilities. He contributes to improving the situation and encourages the individual, group, community, or society toward proper attitudes. He tries to solve and eliminate disturbances and demotivating factors in interaction with the social environment, leads the client toward personal responsibility, toward the development of critical thinking from the perspective of future needs, and toward the purposeful use of one's own resources. The expected effects manifest at the moment of the social client's independence." The importance of focusing on service to the inmate in the educator's practice in such a difficult situation as adaptation to a new environment in imprisonment and possible adaptation problems, of which there are many, lies precisely in the counselor-client relationship. The client expects the counselor to advise him, to listen to him when needed, to understand his difficult situation, and to accept him in his uniqueness. At the same time, he makes it clear to him that he is, first and foremost, a human being for him who has the same rights and value as he himself, except for those rights that are taken away from him in connection with the punishment. A sensitive and service-oriented educator, however, in interaction with the inmate tries to eliminate even this feeling so that he can build a relationship based on empathy, acceptance, and mutual trust. The task of the educator, just like "the task of the social worker-counselor is to understand each client, to take an interest in him, to empathize with him as he is, to keep one's fingers crossed for him - simply to like him, to see in him even the good sides that escape others" (Kopřiva, 1997, p. 21, In Oláh, Schavel, 2006, p. 123). Only very firm value orientations of the educator will lead to the adoption of these tasks, because he must be able to detach himself from the inmate's criminal activity, while knowing it in detail and keeping it in mind, so that he can appropriately set a treatment program that he continuously monitors, reassesses, evaluates, and changes as needed.

The second value, which consists in the fair, considerate, optimal, and creative use of professional power, authority, and opportunity in relation to clients and other people in the educator's work with the inmate, provides great space for demonstrating a real attitude toward the inmate. The educator, officer, representative of state power, counselor, but also a person with disciplinary authority and, last but not least, an evaluator of the inmate, is a multiple authority granted to him by status. Such reinforced authority no longer needs to be built, rather one must be able to deal with it so that it does not act too authoritatively. Status gives the educator great power over the inmate, which makes the inmate to a certain extent dependent on the educator and his subjective decisions and evaluations. If the educator is to achieve, in his activities within individual forms of treatment, the goal of shaping the inmate's positive volitional qualities and abilities so that after release from imprisonment he observes generally binding legal regulations and the principles of social morality and through them also supports the inmate's self-respect, respect for others, and develops a sense of responsibility for his behavior, as stated in § 4 of RGR No. 86/2009, then it is precisely the educator's behavior and his use of professional power that is decisive for his success. The inmate can be led to these qualities effectively only if the one who leads him is a person with high demands on himself. This means that he is an example to the inmate in observing norms in a way that respects human dignity despite the fundamentally different status. Non-acceptance, non-congruence, refusal of help, failure to comply with norms, breaking promises, or humiliating human dignity in any form is a fundamental problem for the inmate in understanding why he should change something about himself if the one who is supposed to change him is not an example to him. In such a case, one cannot speak of building mutual trust either. And without mutual trust, one cannot speak of the successful implementation of individual forms of treatment. Then one can speak of a more formal reporting of the educator's activity, which leads the inmate to try to create the impression of a good and obedient prisoner in order to avoid a negative evaluation. In such a case we speak of the purposeful behavior of the inmate, or in the process of prisonization we describe him as well institutionalized. This means that although he observes the established norms during imprisonment, he is not convinced of their real meaning. This can hardly lead to changes in the inmate's characteristics; on the contrary, it can lead him to the conclusion that it is normal to break the rules. Such a realization of the inmate leads to ideologization during imprisonment, that is, to a negative adaptation phenomenon to the prison environment, which is based on the informal hierarchy of inmates without the presence of staff.

Taking responsibility for the competent, considerate, and ethical performance of professional functions is a necessary value for the educator. In practice, this means that only his internal conviction of the correctness of working with inmates is not enough. Being competent means continuously improving in methods and techniques of work so that he can perform his profession as qualitatively as possible. A great responsibility of the educator is also the ability to maintain a balance between the application of the repressive component of imprisonment, the manner of requiring compliance with established order and discipline by other officers, and forms of treatment whose success is conditioned by minimal or no aggression. Leading the entrusted group of inmates to observe this part is necessary. It is also appropriate to monitor how it is applied by other colleagues, because an inappropriate manner does not lead to the adoption of the necessity to observe order and discipline. Being able to solve such a problem with one's colleagues presupposes a high level of engagement in working with inmates, because he may not meet with understanding if he stands up for inmates. It is only up to his decision whether he will try to eliminate the negative forms of behavior of his colleagues, or whether he will rid himself of responsibility and be deaf and blind so as not to cause possible complications for himself. With such an attitude, however, without realizing it, he may lose authority with inmates, but also credibility, thereby closing the path to the client, and thus the possibility of working better with the client.

In relation to the public and social policy, advocating for matters concerning clients or one's own tasks presupposes the educator's ability to know the inmates as well as possible. This knowledge leads him to evaluate inmates as objectively as possible, and this is also a prerequisite for the possible successful application of the established treatment program, as well as for preventing unfavorable social events during imprisonment. The ability and effort of objective evaluation of inmates also leads to trust, because inmates perceive any manifestation of injustice during imprisonment very sensitively, which leads them to apathy, non-cooperation, and a loss of understanding of the purpose of treatment. Such a state is in fundamental contradiction with the goal of social policy in the area of resocialization of inmates, because it can lead to recidivism, thereby increasing the demands on the financial provision of imprisonment, instead of the inmate, upon return, once again fulfilling his social roles as a citizen of productive age. The educator's task is to continuously promote the best possible not only legislative but also institutional background that would lead to the fulfillment of his own tasks, the goals of social policy, and above all the needs of inmates so that the degree of influence of the prison environment on their personality in the negative sense is minimal. The educator's duty in fulfilling this value is also to promote new possibilities for solving the issue with his superiors, and likewise to point out current shortcomings and problems that thwart the staff's effort to apply treatment as well as possible. An important quality in this part is the ability to rid oneself of fear of superiors and to assert one's justified claims through professional arguments. Toward society, which often perceives the issue of prisons as a blind alley and, in today's difficult economic and social situation, is on the periphery of interest, it is appropriate through one's approach to the profession and efforts to inform the public about the current state of the prison system to increase the status of the profession and to make visible society's need to take an interest in prisons. It seems appropriate to get rid of prejudices that everyone who is punished by deprivation of liberty is irredeemable or that it is necessary to punish more severely by deprivation of liberty, which may indeed seem like a suitable immediate solution, but it also has many other important side aspects, among which undoubtedly belong the economic demands associated with deprivation of liberty.

Regime Officer of the Sentence-Execution Department

A function that, by its status and the content of its service activities, ensures regime service, thus organizing and managing, in the entrusted section, the performance of activities within the daily schedule of inmates and activities to ensure the rights of inmates. It is a representative of the system of supervision, control, and security as an inseparable part of the prison environment in the interest of protecting the safety of society and staff, as well as inmates. It is precisely the regime officer, as the closest collaborator of the educator, who has the duty to monitor the behavior of inmates and inform the educator of his findings. He has the right to propose disciplinary rewards and punishments, which are applied by the educator. Under the law, he has a duty to prevent inmates from violating the law. For inmates, he is a guide and controller of every step during the day until lights out. This seemingly simple, but extremely demanding function is not considered a helping profession; however, we clearly include it among them, because through its work it directly affects the atmosphere of the inmate collective. Whether the atmosphere is full of tension or not also affects the behavior of inmates, that is, the quality of mutual interaction, which in a closed environment is of great importance. Therefore, the prerequisites for the personality of the regime officer are the same values as for the educator, despite the fact that the requirements for education are different. As the main principles of the regime officer's work, we consider the promotion of regime service in the form of respect, decency, and courtesy in communication with inmates. Building authority through inappropriate behavior or using vulgar expressions, addressing inmates informally, is unprofessional and humiliates human dignity. The importance of a professional approach is therefore necessary precisely in finding a balance between the repressive and humanizing components of treatment, which in their quality either support or negate one another. Through continuous improvement in social-communication skills, the regime officer is bound by responsibility to the profession. The employer should create a good background for this and support him in further education focused on coping with stress, stressful situations, conflicts, and the possibilities and forms of asserting and exercising state power in a decent manner. Among the simplest ways is, for example, early informing inmates about what we require, without unnecessary aggressive reactions that provoke not only an aggressive response from inmates. It is precisely the regime officer who is, for the inmate, a kind of imaginary model in the exercise of state power. He is likewise under the close scrutiny of inmates in adhering to norms, keeping promises, and maintaining a unified approach to order and discipline, which inmates assess very sensitively.

Conclusion

The issue of ethics in penitentiary care is relatively broad and complex, because the specific environment, which is closed and receives only marginal attention from society, is fundamentally addressed by legislative norms. The need for ethical standards for all prison workers appears well founded. It is not only about those professions that require an ethical code in society, but also the others who participate in the treatment process through their activities. Leading personnel to realize the need to continuously reduce the number of inmates as the main social task and not merely isolate the inmate during imprisonment could, through the creation of ethical principles and further staff training, mean a shift from formally preferred to genuine interest in inmates as members of society who are in an unfavorable social situation and need a special approach in their uniqueness.

Authors:PhDr. Tibor Roman, PhD. PhDr. Ladislav Roman, PhD. List of Bibliographic References

[1] MÁTEL, A. 2010. Ethics of Social Work. Bratislava : VŠZaSP sv. Alžbety, 2010. 183 p. ISBN 978-80-89271-85-6. [2] OLÁH, Michal, SCHAVEL, Milan. 2006. Introduction to the Study and History of Social Work. 1st ed. Prešov : VŠ sv. Alžbety, ÚSV a Z, 2006. 176 p. ISBN 80-9694499-1. [3] STRIEŽENEC, Štefan. 1999. Introduction to Social Work. Trnava : Ad, 1999. 215 p. ISBN 80-967589-6-9. [4] Collection of Orders of the Director General of the Corps of Prison and Court Guard No. 86/2009 on the treatment of accused and convicted persons.

The lecture was delivered at the international scientific conference Applied Ethics in Social Work and Other Helping Professions, which took place on 20 - 21 October 2010 in Piešťany and was published in the proceedings from this conference: MÁTEL, A. – SCHAVEL, M. – MÜHLPACHR, P. – ROMAN, T. 2010. Applied Ethics in Social Work and Other Helping Professions. Proceedings of the international scientific conference. Bratislava : VŠZaSP sv. Alžbety. 413 p. ISBN 978-80-89271-89-4.