Changes in Czech Penitentiary System in the Context of the Restorative Paradigm: From Retribution to Relationship Healing

Introduction

The transformation of Czech prisoning in the last decades reflects broader pan-European trends that seek to respond to the exhaustion of traditional retributive models of punishment. While the historical landscape of prison systems was defined by isolation and repression, current professional discourse in ethopedics and penology is increasingly shifting toward the restorative paradigm. Restorative justice does not represent merely a technical alternative to mainstream adjudication, but a deep conceptual change that places the victim and her or his needs at the center, rather than an abstract breach of the state norm.

The timeliness of this topic is reinforced by the longstanding effort to reduce recidivism and to humanize the prison environment, which are goals that cannot be achieved through mere offender isolation. The introduction of restorative elements into prison practice requires not only legislative changes but, above all, a shift in the mindset of staff and the broader public.

The aim of this text is to synthesize knowledge on the development of Czech prisoning in the context of restorative justice and to assess the potential of its application in the Czech sociocultural environment. The text proceeds from the premise that crime is, first and foremost, a disruption of interpersonal relationships rather than merely a conflict between offender and state. In the following sections, the author focuses on historical transformations of prison regimes, philosophical foundations of punishment, and the practical impact of restorative programs on the stability of the prison system. Methodologically, the article relies on a synthesis of professional sources reflecting both criminological and ethopedic aspects of the issue.

Historical development and turn away from the repressive model

The present shape of Czech prisoning is undergoing a phase of reflection that seeks to overcome the traditional view of punishment as mere retribution. While historically the prison system was primarily viewed through a retributive justice lens, in which the main role was played by offender isolation and compliance with the letter of the law, modern trends in ethopedics and criminology emphasize the need to restore damaged social ties. In this respect, restorative justice is not merely an alternative procedural pathway but a profound change in how crime is understood—no longer seen only as a violation of a legal norm, but as harm to specific persons and communities (Strémy and Griger, 2020).

The roots of Czech prisoning, formed within the Austro-Hungarian and later Czechoslovak legal space, were long anchored in the theory of “just desert.” Prisons served as places where the convicted person was expected, under adverse conditions, to repay a debt to society through isolation and a stereotypical regime (Paníček, 1970, cit. dle Strémy and Griger, 2020). A turning point came with Act No. 59/1965 Coll., on the execution of imprisonment, which introduced a system of differentiation and laid the groundwork for re-educational efforts, even though still within the confines of the then prevailing ideology.

After 1989, there was a gradual humanization of prisoning. Repression as the sole aim of punishment began to yield to the concept of resocialization, which is based on the belief that isolation from society cannot be an effective preparatory measure for return to it. The ambition of the modern system became to bring prison regime closer to everyday life conditions, thereby minimizing the adverse effects of prisonization1. Restorative ideas, however, began to significantly infiltrate the Czech context mainly in the last decade, when attention shifted to the victim of crime, whose needs had often been marginalized in the retributive system (Juras, Urbanová and Novák, 2023).

Analysis of systemic (in)effectiveness through measurable indicators

Previous discussion of the declining functionality of Czech prisoning has often relied on qualitative observation, yet empirical data confirm this trend with high urgency. The principal indicator of inefficiency remains the recidivism rate, which has long hovered around 70% in the Czech Republic (Prison Service of the Czech Republic, 2023). Compared with the European Union average, where this value in progressive systems ranges between 20% and 30%, the domestic model demonstrates a chronic inability to fulfill its resocialization function.

Another measurable indicator is the incarceration rate. While the Western European average is about 80 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants, in the Czech Republic this figure is more than double, currently reaching approximately 180–190 persons (ICPR, 2023). These figures do not signal higher criminality but rather the rigidity of penal policy and overuse of unconditional deprivation-of-freedom sentences for minor criminal activity. The economic burden of this state is unsustainable; average daily costs per prisoner exceed CZK 1,500, without this investment leading to a demonstrable increase in societal safety through offender correction.

Theoretical foundations of restorative justice

The core paradigm of restorative justice rests on three pillars: harm, obligation, and participation. Unlike classical criminal law, which asks what law was broken and what punishment should follow, the restorative approach examines who was harmed, what the needs of those affected are, and who has the obligation to repair this harm (Zehr, 2002, cit. dle Strémy and Griger, 2020). Here, crime is understood as a disruption of balance among people.

Zhou (2025) points out that compatibility between restorative and retributive justice is not absolute and depends on the phase of criminal proceedings. Whereas in the pre-trial (judicial) phase conflicts may arise with defendants’ rights such as the right to silence or the presumption of innocence, in the post-penitentiary phase and during the actual service of the sentence, these two approaches can complement each other effectively. Restorative programs in prisons thus allow offenders to take active responsibility for their actions, which is a psychologically much more demanding process than passive submission to punishment (Strémy and Griger, 2020).

Implementation of restorative elements in the Czech prison system

In the Czech context, the development of restorative practice is closely linked to the work of the Probation and Mediation Service (PMS) and the Institute for Restorative Justice. The 2021 Restorative Justice Strategy for the Czech Republic defines clear goals for integrating these procedures at all stages of the criminal process. Among the most important activities are programs such as “Building Bridges,” which facilitate mediated meetings between victims and offenders who do not know each other. These meetings allow offenders to perceive the real consequences of their criminal conduct through victims’ experiences, which is often a strong catalyst for reform (Juras, Urbanová and Novák, 2023).

Another example is the “Křehká šance” project, which focuses on work with offenders of violent crime and their preparation for a safe return to the community. A key element here is so-called Victim Impact Training, aimed at awareness of the impact of the offense on the victim. These programs appear to have the potential to reduce recidivism because they provide offenders not only with formal re-education, but lead them toward inner transformation and understanding of the ethical dimension of their failure (Strémy and Griger, 2020).

Public opinion as a factor of legitimacy

The success of the restorative movement in the Czech Republic depends on social acceptance. Research suggests that support for restorative ideas among the Czech public is relatively high and directly linked to the level of awareness of these options (Juras, Urbanová and Novák, 2023). The public sees restorative justice as meaningful especially for less serious crime, youth offenders, or individuals showing sincere efforts at reform.

An interesting finding is that respondents often prefer restitution and an apology to the victim over imprisonment alone, if it is ensured that the offender assumes responsibility. There is, however, a limit when it comes to serious violent crimes, where the retributive component remains central in public perception (Juras, Urbanová and Novák, 2023). Zhou (2025) also confirms this, noting that for the most serious offenses restorative justice should rather serve as a supplement to conventional punishment than as its complete substitute, so that the public interest in safety and deterrence is not undermined.

Limits and challenges of restorative prisoning

Despite positive trends, the implementation of restorative justice in Czech prisoning encounters several barriers. The first is institutional inertia and inadequate staffing capacity for carrying out demanding therapeutic and mediation programs. Restorative work requires specific skills and time, both scarce resources in overcrowded prisons.

Another issue is voluntariness. Zhou (2025) emphasizes that any pressure on an offender to participate in a restorative process deprives the act of its therapeutic character and reduces it to another form of punishment. Authentic apology and acceptance of responsibility cannot be coerced if they are to lead to lasting attitude change. Likewise, the victim must be protected to prevent secondary victimization during the negotiation process (Zhou, 2025).

A specific area that eludes restorative ambitions is security detention. As professional discussion in neighboring Slovakia indicates, for persons with mental disorders who committed serious offenses, emphasis shifts from punishment to treatment and isolation in the interest of public protection (Jůzl, 2023). Even here, however, elements of humanity and respect for dignity can be sought, which are compatible with a restorative spirit.

Perspectives on the “restorative prison”

The concept of a restorative prison represents a vision in which the entire institutional regime is oriented toward repairing relationships. It is not only about isolated programs, but about the overall atmosphere that supports dynamic security—that is, security based on quality relations between staff and prisoners and on the resolution of conflicts through dialogue rather than solely repression (Strémy and Griger, 2020).

The future development of Czech prisoning will likely move toward tighter integration of prison services, PMS, and the nonprofit sector. The goal is to create a continuous care chain that begins already in pre-trial proceedings, continues during sentence execution, and culminates in assisted release back to freedom. Integrating restorative principles into this chain offers a path to reduce social costs of crime while providing victims with a form of reparation that offender incarceration alone rarely provides.

Opportunities for international inspiration and socio-cultural limits

When searching for an optimal direction for Czech penology, the Scandinavian model appears most successful, specifically the Norwegian principle of normality. This system is built on the premise that the punishment itself is only the deprivation of liberty, not the conditions of sentence execution, which should correspond as closely as possible to life in majority society (Høidal and Hanssen, 2023). Transferring this model into the Czech context, however, encounters specific socio-cultural barriers.

Yet Czech society is historically burdened by post-totalitarian legacy, which views prison primarily as an instrument of repression and retribution. There is strong public demand for strict punishment, reflected in political reluctance toward more radical reforms. In contrast to the high levels of social cohesion and trust in institutions characterizing Norway or Denmark, the Czech Republic exhibits greater skepticism toward alternative approaches to work with offenders. As a result, the more feasible path appears to be adaptation of the Austrian or German model. These systems, rooted in a similar continental legal tradition, have effectively integrated elements of restorative justice, strengthened the role of probation, and diversified prisons into smaller, community-oriented units without disrupting public perceptions of safety.

In other words, Norway represents an ideological and value-based goal (a vision), while the Austrian-German model offers a feasible methodological framework (a structure) that is more compatible with Czech legal architecture and social settings.

Proposals for structural changes in the Czech prison system

For the system to cease showing declining functionality, it is necessary to transform it from a purely repressive to a rehabilitative model. The proposed changes should focus on three key areas:

• Diversification of sentencing: It is necessary to legislatively support the imposition of alternative sentences (fines, house arrest) for first-time offenders and non-violent offenses. The current situation, in which prisons are filled with people with accumulated debts or minor property offenses, only deepens their social exclusion.
• Humanization and regionalization of prison facilities: The aim should be to abandon the concept of high-capacity prisons for hundreds of sentenced persons. The model of open prisons (e.g., Jiřice) can serve as inspiration, as it demonstrably reduces tension and prepares individuals for a smoother transition to civil life. Smaller facilities with family-style accommodation allow for individualized ethopedic intervention, which is not feasible in mass dormitories. Lately, however, we have seen the opposite: the central women’s prison in Světlá nad Sázavou is being reconstructed and further expanded.
• Strengthening post-penitentiary care: A critical point in the Czech system is the moment of release, when the sentenced person often faces debt traps and loss of social ties. An integrated cooperation system between the Prison Service, Probation and Mediation Service, and the nonprofit sector is needed to guarantee support during the first six months after release. A first attempt has already been implemented through the Probation House in Písek.

Without these systemic changes, Czech prisoning will remain a costly mechanism for the temporary isolation of offenders, one that generates further criminality instead of helping to eliminate it.

Conclusion

The synthesis of findings on Czech prisoning in relation to restorative justice suggests that we are in a period of critical re-evaluation of the meaning of punishment. It appears that the traditional model of prison as an isolated institution that merely “stores” offenders passively is unsustainable in terms of long-term societal safety. Restorative justice in this regard offers a reliable framework for active resocialization, which forces offenders to confront the real consequences of their conduct. As Zhou (2025) emphasizes, compatibility of restorative and retributive approaches is crucial in the post-penitentiary phase because it allows balancing the need for just retribution with the imperative of repairing relationships.

From an ethopedic perspective, it is necessary to view restorative programs as a means of strengthening inmates’ internal responsibility. Pilot programs have shown that moderated dialogue can be a more effective instrument of attitude change than simple discipline. Nevertheless, limitations emerging in connection with serious crime and public attitudes cannot be ignored. Juras, Urbanová and Novák (2023) confirm that Czech society is inclined toward restorative approaches primarily for less serious crimes and first-time offenders. This indicates a need for sensitive implementation that is not perceived as weakening the authority of law, but as an ethical deepening of it.

The discussion of determinism and free will, which Jůzl (2023) opens in the context of detention, further reminds us that boundaries between punishment and treatment are often blurred. If we accept the idea that many offenders are driven to offending by adverse social or psychological factors, restorative care becomes not an act of mercy but a logical outcome of efforts to stabilize the social order. Czech prisoning’s future trajectory should therefore orient toward developing the concept of a “restorative prison,” where security is based on relationship quality and where sentence execution is preparation for genuine reintegration into the community.

The practical implications are clear: it is necessary to strengthen prison personnel with experts capable of leading restorative processes and at the same time educate the public about their significance. Restorative justice is not the denial of guilt, but its transformation into a constructive commitment. Only through such a system can Czech prisoning stop being merely a place of punishment and become a space for real change in human behavior.

Author: Bc. Jan Brychta, Ed.D. The author works as an educator at the Youth Home of the Hotelová School in Poděbrady. He has completed studies in upbringing, resocialization and penitentiary pedagogy, and management of educational institutions. He is currently studying social work. Professionally, he deals with adolescent behavior disorders.

List of bibliographic references

HØIDAL, N. and N. HANSSEN. (2023) The Norwegian Prison System: Halden Prison and Beyond. New York: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781003195887.

ICPR. (2023) World Prison Brief: Czech Republic. [online]. In Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. Available from: https://www.prisonstudies.org. [accessed 05. 04. 2026].

JURAS, A., URBANOVÁ, M. and NOVÁK, J. (2023) Restorative justice from the perspective of the Czech public, In Právník, 162(8), p. 713–729.

JŮZL, M. (2023) Netrestat, ale léčit, In Prohuman. [Online] Available from: https://www.prohuman.sk/socialna-praca/netrestat-ale-lecit. [accessed 20. 03. 2026].

STRÉMY, T. and GRIGER, J. (2020) Influence of Restorative Justice on Prison System, In Godišnjak Fakulteta bezbednosti, p. 41–58. DOI: 10.5937/fb_godisnjak0-29099.

VĚZEŇSKÁ SLUŽBA ČESKÉ REPUBLIKY. (2023). Annual Statistical Yearbook 2022. Prague: General Directorate of the Prison Service of the Czech Republic.

ZHOU, S. (2025) Analysis of whether restorative justice and criminal justice are incompatible justice paradigms, In Contemporary Justice Review, 28(1), p. 1–12. DOI: 10.1080/10282580.2025.2465434.

1Prisonization is the process of gradual adaptation of an individual to the specific prison environment, during which they adopt the informal norms, values, and behavioral patterns of that environment, which may facilitate survival in the institution but often complicates their subsequent return to ordinary society.