The idea of writing a contribution on this topic arose several years ago, at a time when the author’s mind did not yet contain any connection with social work, and certainly not in connection with this conference. Despite the passage of six years since the first idea, it is ultimately a certain satisfaction that even through this conference a space was created for a theoretical-practical reflection, since ethics is precisely the platform for expressing a moral paradigm.

1 Social Treatment in a Regime of Restriction of Personal Liberty

The listener or reader of this contribution must necessarily ask why social treatment and why in a regime of restriction of personal liberty. Two concepts that have so far not appeared in relation to prison service in the context of social work.

Why social treatment? The concept of social treatment captures the essence of treatment, because Act 475/2005 recognizes the concept of treatment and defines it as a set of activities (§ 11 of the Act). Treatment through a set of activities can be applied in any environment, not only in the environment of prisons for the execution of prison sentences, while every environment formed by human beings (and not only human beings) is a social environment. Hence the term social treatment.

Why social treatment in a regime of restriction of personal liberty? The regime of restriction of personal liberty expresses the essence of the execution of a prison sentence. The word regime expresses the manner of existence under the conditions of serving a prison sentence. We also commonly use the word regime in connection with an individual’s daily regime (amount of sleep, way of eating, work, rest, etc.), and therefore the execution of a prison sentence, as a consciously artificially created environment, has its own daily regime, as well as the daily regime of an individual (manner of existence) in his or her natural environment. And a stay in the environment of serving a sentence, as a restriction of personal liberty, is necessarily connected with a regime, the manner of existence of the individual in a consciously artificially created environment, and therefore the term social treatment in a regime of restriction of personal liberty.

2 Why 'Yes' to Social Treatment and 'No' to Penitentiary Treatment

The Spanish-English translation of the word penitencia is punishment, penance, remorse ( http://translate.google.sk/translate?hl=sk&sl=en&u= ), traditionally represented by punishment for sin with subsequent remorse and penance (Fig. 1 - the traditional Christian idea of the return of the prodigal son to his Father). It is a justified question whether precisely the environment of serving a prison sentence (prison) is a place of penance, a place of remorse, and a place of repentance, since the issue of guilt and punishment was decided on the merits by a third party (the court), while the offender, the sinner, had only limited influence on the scope and severity of the punishment. The moral conflict in its criminal-law form was no longer a matter of negotiation, a way of best acceptance; the court’s verdict was already a harm to the offender (and often also to his family). Prison is often a place of resistance of the sinner against the decision (punishment) to which he had to submit for a certain time (e.g. frequent attempts to reopen proceedings, filing an extraordinary remedy, etc.). Ultimately, in this environment the sinner is often a victim, and his attitude and experience of guilt and punishment are not usually internalized. It is an interference with his rights and freedom, which are sacred to the individual regardless of how he limited his victim’s rights and freedom. If guilt and punishment (penance) are not internalized, if they do not pass through emotionally positive experience, if they do not pass through the phase of remorse and repentance, they often make no sense to the individual, while they may accumulate energy potential for retaliation. Hence the term social treatment instead of the term penitentiary treatment.

3 The First Starting Point for the Moral Paradigm

The National Assembly of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, on 17 June 1965, adopted for the first time in the history of post-war Czechoslovakia the text of Act No. 59/1965 Coll. - on the Execution of Prison Sentences. It was published in the Collection of Laws of 1965, issue 30, pp. 331 - 340.

Its wording stated that “the purpose of the execution of a prison sentence is to prevent the convicted person from further committing criminal activity and to educate him continuously so that he leads the proper life of a working person. The execution of a prison sentence must not degrade human dignity.”

By Act No. 84/1969 Coll., on 25 July 1969, the Presidium of the Federal Assembly declared its full wording, since during the period of its effectiveness it had been amended four times and the changes needed to be adjusted for reasons of visual clarity and interpretation. The purpose of the execution of a prison sentence was in no way affected.

In the Collection of Laws of the Czechoslovak Federative Republic of 1990, issue 31 of 2 May 1990, Act No. 59/1965 was again amended by Act No. 179/1990, whereby the purpose of the execution of a prison sentence was partially reformulated in Article 1, paragraph 1, as follows: “the purpose of the execution of a prison sentence is to prevent the convicted person from further committing criminal activity and to educate him continuously so that he leads the proper life of a citizen” and, further, paragraph 2 was inserted after paragraph 1, which stated that: “in the execution of a prison sentence, natural human dignity must be respected; cruel or human-dignity-degrading methods of treatment and punishment must not be used”.

On 22 September 2005, with effect from 1 January 2006, the National Council of the Slovak Republic adopted Act No. 475/2005 on the Execution of Prison Sentences, which no longer contained the purpose of the execution of a prison sentence, but in §1 the subject of the Act, which reads: “this Act lays down the manner of execution of a prison sentence (hereinafter only ‘execution of sentence’), the rights and duties of convicted persons, and supervision and control over the execution of the sentence” and further in § 11 contains the definition of the term treatment, which was used in penitentiary terminology after 1989 as: “a set of activities whose purpose is to ensure, in a differentiated manner, the exercise of rights and duties under this Act, to support and develop a sense of responsibility, respect for laws and social norms, positive personality traits, respect for others, self-respect and a positive relationship to family. In dealing with the convicted person, account is also taken of limiting the adverse influences of the prison environment”.

4 The Second Starting Point for the Moral Paradigm

From 1 January 2006, the philosophy of the execution of a prison sentence abandoned the pedagogical (educational) optimism embodied in the purpose of the execution of a prison sentence from the years 1965 - 2005 and focused on an emotionally impartial, technocratic, and cognitively rational manner of executing the sentence, the rights and duties of convicted persons, and supervision and control over the institute of the execution of a prison sentence. It might seem that the execution of a prison sentence abandoned the dimension of the 'human' educational component, but it redefined it once again in the definition of the term treatment in § 11 of Act No. 475/2005, whose definition also contains the word purpose.

According to the record from the meeting of the Collegium of the Minister of Justice from June 2004 (author’s archive, 2004), where material titled Draft Act on the Execution of Custody and the Act on the Execution of Prison Sentences in connection with the recodification of the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code was submitted for discussion. The draft act, in addition to the purpose of the Act in § 1 (the purpose of the Act is to regulate the execution of a prison sentence (hereinafter only “execution of sentence”), its conditions, the rights and duties of convicted persons, and supervision and control over the execution of the sentence), also defined in § 2 the purpose of the execution of the sentence (the purpose of the execution of the sentence is to protect society from perpetrators of criminal activity, prevent the convicted person from committing further criminal activity, and create conditions enabling the activation of positive personality reserves for his resocialization so that he is able to lead the proper life of a citizen), while in § 11 (General Provision) it also defined the concept of treatment as: “treatment of the convicted person is a process whose purpose is to support and develop his sense of responsibility, respect for laws and social norms, positive personality traits, respect for others, self-respect and a positive relationship to family. In dealing with the convicted person, account is also taken of limiting the adverse influences of the prison environment.” The Collegium of the Minister of Justice expressed comments on the draft act and instructed the Director General of the Prison and Court Guard Service to incorporate them into the text of the prepared act and send it to the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic for further legislative proceedings.

Ultimately, on 22 September 2005, the National Council of the Slovak Republic adopted it as Act No. 475/2005 on the Execution of Prison Sentences and on Amendments and Supplements to Certain Acts (hereinafter only the 'Act'), agreeing only with the wording of §1 of the draft act (subject of the Act); the purpose of the Act was no longer defined. The new provision of §2 replaced the purpose of the Act with a definition of basic concepts, the content of which is as follows:

For the purposes of this Act: a) basic personal hygiene needs mean soap, toilet paper and a towel; for female convicted persons also sanitary pads, b) additional personal hygiene needs mean a hair comb, toothbrush, toothpaste, hair shampoo and shaving needs, c) basic correspondence needs mean ordinary letter mail, an envelope, paper and writing implements; writing implements are merely loaned to the convicted person, d) a close person means spouse and their parents, partner, parent, biological and adopted child, adoptive parent, grandparent, sibling and his or her spouse, and a person to whose care a child of the convicted person has been entrusted in place of parental care due to the execution of the sentence, while the definition of the term treatment in § 11 of the Act changed from a process to a set of activities in the wording: 'treatment of the convicted person is a set of activities whose purpose is to ensure, in a differentiated manner, the exercise of rights and duties under this Act, to support and develop a sense of responsibility, respect for laws and social norms, positive personality traits, respect for others, self-respect and a positive relationship to family. In dealing with the convicted person, account is also taken of limiting the adverse influences of the prison environment'.

5 The Third Starting Point for the Moral Paradigm

At this point, there is already room to ask the question: ...Why is the subject of interest in the contribution the purpose of the Act, the subject of the Act, and the concept of treatment? The author of the contribution participated as a member of the preparatory commission in drafting Act No. 475/2005, but no longer had any influence on the comments of the members of the Collegium of the Minister of Justice, nor on the approval process in the National Council of the Slovak Republic.

Its preparation process was, like any other, marked by conflicting opinions on its philosophy explained in the explanatory memorandum in the wording of every sentence, while moral paradigm often was the driving force during its preparation not only with regard to the target group (convicted persons), but also to the staff (members) of the institutions for the execution of prison sentences. The moral paradigm in:

  • what we offer and enable to the target group through the Act (the scope of rights and duties of convicted persons),
  • what we offer to the staff of institutions (members of institutions) through treatment of the target group, since in § 3 of the Act (basic principles of execution of sentence) it is established that:

(1) In the execution of the sentence, the human dignity of the convicted person shall be respected and cruel, inhuman or degrading methods of treatment or punishment may not be used. (2) All rights established by this Act are guaranteed to all convicted persons in accordance with the principle of equal treatment. (3) In the execution of the sentence, such attitudes and abilities are supported as will help the convicted person in re-entering society and respecting the legal order. (4) Any easing of restrictions in the execution of the sentence must not be carried out in a manner that would endanger the protection of society from perpetrators of criminal activity or reduce the effect of the preventive influence of the execution of the sentence on other members of society. (5) The sentence is executed in a differentiated manner. Movement, contact, and the manner of securing and exercising the rights of the convicted person differ according to the level of security. (6) To increase the effectiveness of the execution of the sentence, internal differentiation is carried out and specialized units are created.

This is because, in order to fulfill the purpose of treatment under § 11, the assigned educator prepares for the convicted person (target group) a treatment program which, according to § 15, para. 3, “is a set of activities aimed at developing the personality of the convicted person, his appropriate behavior and value orientation in accordance with the rights and duties established by this Act and other generally binding legal regulations”, while according to para. 4: “the treatment program establishes purposeful, comprehensive and structured influence on the convicted person according to his personality traits, professional knowledge and level of education in accordance with the purpose of the execution of the sentence”, which in Act 475/2005 on the Execution of Prison Sentences was not defined. The wording of § 15, para. 4, despite two amendments to the Act to date, has not been adjusted.

The moral paradigm that arose after the approval of Act No. 475/2005 was not only on the level of interpretation of certain provisions, but also of feelings intensified by communication with members of the institutions for the execution of prison sentences (the author of the contribution draws only on the content of personal communication with members, hitherto unpublished). What then did they feel in relation to themselves (the subject of treatment) and the target group (the object of treatment):

  • the main target (moral paradigm) of dissatisfaction among the members who communicated with the author of the contribution was the wording of § 2 of the Act, which no longer contained the purpose of the execution of the sentence, as in Act No. 59/1965 (the purpose of the execution of the sentence is to protect society from perpetrators of criminal activity, prevent the convicted person from committing further criminal activity, and create conditions enabling the activation of positive personality reserves for his resocialization so that he is able to lead the proper life of a citizen - draft act from the MS SR Collegium), but a definition of basic concepts (soap, toilet paper, towel; for female convicted persons also sanitary pads, hair comb, toothbrush, toothpaste, hair shampoo, shaving needs .....). To answer satisfactorily the logical question, usually phrased as: 'is it possible to find in the legislative norms of the Slovak Republic a law whose provisions begin in a similarly demeaning way?', was impossible. Accusations of incompetence against the preparatory commission or individual members in the process of drafting the Act were logical until the moment when uninvolved members could familiarize themselves with the wording of the Act that had been submitted to the meeting of the Collegium of the Minister of Justice in June 2004. But the moral paradigm persists to this day, because lacking a moral argument for such a significant and wholly unjustified change at the beginning of the wording of the Act always testifies to the argumentative ability and moral strength, or persuasiveness, of the personality of the creator or creators of the Act in its preparatory phase. This 'lapsus' in the wording of the Act was assessed from a moral (ethical) point of view, since the feeling of embarrassment and humiliation prevailed as the main component of the feelings of the communicating members,
  • another part of the members (mainly involved in the creation of the treatment program) pointed to a contradiction in the wording of § 15 para. 4: 'the treatment program establishes purposeful, comprehensive and structured influence on the convicted person according to his personality traits, professional knowledge and level of education in accordance with the purpose of the execution of the sentence'. Unlike the previous source of the moral paradigm, this contradiction was considered a fundamental deficiency attributed to the professional incompetence of the preparatory commission of the Act,
  • from the author’s perspective, the detail that escaped others is still found in § 16 of the Act (means of treatment), where the proposed wording: 'in dealing with the convicted person, for the fulfillment of the goals of the treatment program, the institutional order, employment, cultural and educational activity, education, and if necessary also forms and methods of social work, disciplinary authority and other resocialization procedures are used' was changed to: 'in dealing with the convicted person, for the fulfillment of the goals of the treatment program, forms and methods of pedagogical and psychological influence, methods of social work, institutional order, disciplinary authority, assignment to work, education and cultural and educational activity are used'. The compound term 'forms and methods of pedagogical and psychological influence' appears only in the wording of Act No. 475/2005 - on the Execution of Prison Sentences (its content is not explained by any literature available to me) and in the currently available material of the Education Institute of the Prison and Court Guard Service in Nitra No. IV ZVJS-58-8/2010 of 23.4.2010 (Educational Program, socio-psychological training) intended for members of the Prison and Court Guard Service, in the wording ... 'to deepen knowledge of the pedagogical and psychological aspects of group activity and group leadership' in part 2 (Graduate Profile). However, from the analysis of the content of the Educational Program, as well as the Teaching Syllabi for socio-psychological training, it follows that during its implementation it does not deal with any pedagogical knowledge ( http://www.zvjs.sk/dokumenty/IV%20ZVJS/SPV%20april%202010.pdf ).

Was the concept of pedagogy inserted into the wording of the approved Act of the National Council of the Slovak Republic randomly, without a predetermined meaning and purpose, or with the expectation that it would be explained, which has not happened to this day? The fact remains, however, that the core concept of Act No. 475/2005 - on the Execution of Prison Sentences is not pedagogical or educational influence, but treatment, excluding the adjective penitentiary, which in the professional sphere ultimately remained a set of activities without the meaning of a processual influence in relation to the object of treatment (the target group), namely convicted persons.

6 The Fourth Starting Point for the Moral Paradigm

What does the above imply for the present of lived experience and the past of what has been lived through? The moral paradigm, which the author of the contribution experiences even today, since the content of the above is still the subject of occasional discussion even now, when he is no longer a member of the Prison and Court Guard Service.

The discussion of the problem no longer has the emotional charge it had at the time when the issue personally and intimately affected him; he had to empathize with the thinking of the subjects of treatment, who perceived the provisions of § 2 of the approved wording of the Act as ridicule, their humiliation to the level of a toothbrush or a sanitary pad, important but not indispensable.

In the context of treatment of convicted persons with nonspecific behavioral disorders (Hejdiš, Kozoň, 2010, pp. 135-142), the author of the contribution repeatedly encountered in emotionally charged situations during crisis intervention or social counseling with convicted persons with nonspecific behavioral disorder the opinion that we should first read the law on the execution of prison sentences and only then 'give advice to muckloves'. The ensuing polemic regarding the expression in a substantially more vulgar form of verbal expression ultimately also led to discussion of the purpose of the Act and of § 2 Basic Needs, which was perceived by the communicator not only as an expression of a demeaning social assessment of the work of institution staff, but also as an attitude that can be taken toward staff in terms of seriousness and status in the current performance of duty.

Ethics (morality) in social treatment is a double-edged sword:

  • on the one hand, the purpose of social treatment in a regime of restriction of personal liberty is, among other things, also the education of the object of social treatment defined through the treatment program, and thus providing opportunities to develop one’s social (communication) skills,
  • on the other hand, the subject of treatment (staff) must be aware of the fact that communication skills brought or acquired during the regime of restriction of personal liberty by the object of treatment are also fully used in communication with institution staff. Therefore, every verbal expression is also an expression of personal traits to assert oneself in a space that is consciously artificially created for the existence of individuals who violate social norms.

The object of social treatment acquires skills in communication with the subject of social treatment, uses them in interaction, but ethically, morally more mature should be the subject of social treatment in communication, who must also manage an emotionally charged situation and use it later in argumentation in his favor, as his advantage. Emotional restraint and the ability to rise above even deliberately degrading moments in relation to the subject of treatment are the main precondition of moral strength in communication with the object of social treatment. This is so even though legislation, which should be emotionally impotent in relation to the object or subject of social treatment, sometimes suggests that emotions may indeed have marked it in some details during the drafting process.

To speak of ethics usually means to speak of two poles of a phenomenon or problem, what is moral and what exceeds the bounds of morality. A moral dilemma (or paradigm) arises on the boundary of morality and is in essence a materialized essence, a choice between two or more undesirable options. The issue of ethics has been and will continue to be connected with philosophy; ethics and morality concern the relation to life, the world, other people, and ultimately oneself as well. The red thread running through the contribution also includes the questions: “How should one behave?”, “What attitude should one take?” in a concrete situation, that is, to make a decision within ethics that does not endanger the subject as well as the object of social treatment in a regime of restriction of personal liberty.

The above in the previous paragraph may create the impression that legislation is outside ethics, morality, and feelings. Legislation is subject to the lady with the sword, scales, and blindfold, where what is written is valid. The discussion of part of the staff had a very practical and at the same time ethical dimension. Why? The provisions of § 2 of the approved Act No. 475/2005 were further elaborated in the wording of the Act, specifically: a) personal hygiene - § 22 of the Act b) close person - § 24 of the Act, c) correspondence - § 25 of the Act, and therefore the moral dilemma or paradigm existed on this level of reasoning: a) prison service in the structure of society occupies a position incompatible with the elite of society, it is among the last places of social prestige, staff not excepted, b) did the wording of the Act in its opening parts seek to express its position in society and reinforce this status also in the minds of staff?, c) was it in the interest that the object of treatment, who critically perceives every provision of the Act, should have the opportunity for discussion that may hypothetically demean the subject of social treatment, but on the basis of an existing argument? d) why could not the provision of § 2 have been incorporated into other sections of the Act, §§ 22, 24 and 25? ... etc.

7 The Fifth Starting Point for the Moral Paradigm

Act No. 475/2005 on the Execution of Prison Sentences has been amended twice to date, namely by Act No. 93/2008, which in § 2, letter c) changed its wording as follows: 'basic correspondence needs mean paper, an envelope, postal forms, writing implements and the sending of ordinary letter mail; postal forms are provided to the convicted person free of charge and writing implements are merely loaned to the convicted person' and by Act No. 498/2008, which dealt with changes in financial particulars. The changes indicate that no one addressed the (possible) moral aspect of the Act in its opening provisions, and probably no one will.

The purpose of this contribution, however, is also to draw attention to the problem of legislation, which apparently no longer resonates in the minds of staff. The times and thinking of the staff have an affinity with other current realities of service performance in institutions for the execution of prison sentences, where social treatment in a regime of restriction of personal liberty is implemented.

Conclusion, or the Moral Paradigm Persists

The ethical dimension of work in a regime of restriction of personal liberty in its forms evokes emotions associated with guilt and punishment, sin and penance. The philosophical dimension of penance or remorse (penitence), a word and its content rarely used by the public, is reinforced by legislation, which in essence creates the ethical dimension of social treatment of a detained person, but configures emotions, or experiences inherent to living human matter, into rights, duties, possibilities and limitations that may evoke them, yet do not take them into account or accept them. Hence also the moral paradigm, which remains.

Author: PaedDr. Milan Hejdiš Society for Social Integration in the Slovak Republic

List of Bibliographic References

[1] HEJDIŠ, Milan, KOZOŇ, Antonín. 2010. Biosocial causes of nonspecific behavioral disorders of convicted persons in penitentiary treatment. In: NEČAS, Stanislav et al. Social, economic, legal and security issues of the present. Prague: Soukromná vysoká škola ekonomických studií, s.r.o., 2010. ISBN 978-80-86744-84-1, pp. 135-142. [2] Act No. 59/1965 Coll. on the execution of prison sentences, as amended by Act No. 173/1968 Coll., Act No. 100/1970 Coll., Act No. 47/1973 Coll., Act No. 179/1990 Coll., Act No. 79/1992 Coll., Act No. 296/1993 Coll., Act No. 33/1994 Coll. and Act No. 451/2002 Coll. [3] Act No. 475/2005 Coll. of 22 September 2005 on the execution of prison sentences and on amendments and supplements to certain acts, as amended by Act No. 93/2008 Coll. and Act No. 498/2008 Coll. [4] penitencia. 2010. [online]. World´s Last Chance, [2010] [cit. 2010-10-03]. Available from WWW: http://translate.google.sk/translate?hl=sk&sl=en&u=http://en.bab.la/dictionary/spanish-english/penitencia-juegos&ei=HnCoTM7bJMiKswaP1oGBDA&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCkQ7gEwAjgK&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpenitencia%26start%3D10%26hl%3Dsk%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3D7wN%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:sk:official%26prmd%3Dvi) . [5] Educational Program, socio-psychological training. 2010. [online]. Institute of Education of the Prison and Court Guard Service in Nitra, [2010] [cit. 2010-10-02]. Available from WWW: http://www.zvjs.sk/dokumenty/IV%20ZVJS/SPV%20april%202010.pdf.

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 pp. ISBN 978-80-89271-89-4.