Rehabilitation as an implementation goal

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rehabilitation means reintegration into the social fabric of society. It relates in particular to the reintegration of offenders into social life outside of prison and their empowerment to a life free of crime. In common parlance, the term is used with the expectation that offenders should change their deviant behavior and adapt to the order and values ​​( norms ) of the majority society. The legal term rehabilitation refers to the concepts of integration (sociology) and rehabilitation of people who have committed offenses.

Rehabilitation (as an implementation goal)

The prison goal of rehabilitation is the most important program specification for everything that happens or is not done in, around and after the prison system . Social rehabilitation is an important punitive purpose in Germany (positive special prevention ). The rehabilitation model assumes that crime is best prevented by addressing the (economic, social or personal) factors that are believed to be the causes of crime. The treatment model linked to rehabilitation is aimed directly at the offender with the aim of reducing criminal offenses. The term is therefore translated in the literature as a “synonym for an entire program” (Cornel 2003, p. 14).

Definitions of terms

The interpretation of the rehabilitation goal as “ reintegration into society ” refers to the prisoner in his role as a member of society (as a synonym of a normative community). If the criminal law norm is violated, membership in society is called into question (Kaiser 1993). According to Cornel and Maelicke (2003), rehabilitation is only to be understood as a “process” that relates not only to the prison system itself, but also to offers outside the prison system. Resocialization also means the ability of the inmate to lead a life without (legal) conflict after release , which the prison system and other control organizations strive for . Deimling and Schüler-Springorum (1969) use a narrow prison term. Fabricius (1991) limits his definition to “regaining legal awareness”. With Baratta the term can also be related to the receptivity of society - as a “service” of society to the imprisoned individual (Baratta 2001, p. 6). Resocialization also points out that in the course of (primary and secondary) socialization, important instances should not have been sufficiently "socialized". Reference is made to the economic and social exclusion of certain population groups. The spelling re-socialization is used to indicate that it is not just about reintegrating into society, but for the first time ( Müller-Dietz 1995). Re- socialization suggests that there is also life outside of society. But every prisoner is part of society, especially an “artificial internal society” (Leyendecker 2002, p. 268), the “prison society” (Schellhoss 1993, p. 429) and at every moment a part of the legal community.

Differentiation from related terms

In the literature, a number of terms are used synonymously or as a substitute for the term rehabilitation. These are in particular:

  • The concept of improvement , which is rejected as a goal in legal theory and specialist literature.
  • The concept of education that is inappropriate for adults. In the area of juvenile criminal law (JGG), however, the idea of ​​upbringing is a central element ( education concept in juvenile criminal law ).
  • The concept of socialization , which refers to the relationship between the individual and society. Müller-Dietz and Schüler-Springorum introduced the term “substitute socialization” at the end of the 1960s, which referred directly to socialization research.
  • The concept of treatment. Calliess and Müller-Dietz understand "the entire field of social interaction and communication between prisoners and their caregivers" as treatment (Calliess and Müller-Dietz 1983, § 4 note 6). These are all measures that come close to the enforcement objective (§§ 6–9 StVollzG). The concepts of treatment and rehabilitation are mutually dependent.
  • The concept of (social) integration leads to the question of the mutual dependency and interaction between prison and “external society” (Baratta 2001, p. 5). “Reintegration of delinquents” is often used synonymously for rehabilitation.
  • The concept of rehabilitation is differentiated from that of rehabilitation in German, but not in Anglo-Saxon usage. Rehabilitation is a special form of rehabilitation.

More detailed explanations of the related terms can be found in Cornel (2003).

Development of the rehabilitation idea

The idea of ​​rehabilitation is historically closely linked to the philosophical theories of punishment (for example with Plato's idea of improvement or the concepts of justice in Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas). The theories of punishment form the basis for the justification of punishment , the granting of rights and the imposition of duties. Approaches to the idea of ​​improvement can be found for the first time in German cities in penitentiaries of the 17th century, which wanted to "improve" people capable of work or socially and economically disruptive people (not offenders) and guide them to a "regular life" (cf. Leyendecker 2002). . At the beginning of the 18th century, the idea of ​​reform was pushed back and the criminally legitimized and physical abuse associated forced labor of prisoners in poor, insane and orphanages increased. In the middle of the 18th century, enlightened absolutism and the spread of natural law theories led to a rationalization of criminal law. The legal philosopher Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794) was one of the first to differentiate between the presumed recovery of offenders and their danger (Beccaria 1764). Through the spread of the human rights idea (education), a more humane understanding of the penal system developed and thus criminals also received certain rights. In the 19th century Kant and Hegel emphasized that no “state has the right to have any kind of patronizing, educational or moralizing influence on its citizens” (Leyendecker 2003, p. 47) and rejected the idea of ​​improvement as incompatible with human dignity from. This limited the claim to punishment. It was not until the second half of the 19th century that the "relative" criminal theories and thus also the special preventive idea came to the fore again. With the differentiation of purpose- specific deterrence by Franz Liszt's (1851-1919), the idea of rehabilitation in place penal end of the 19th century. His foundation. Measures for improvement and upbringing were given by the v. Liszt's classification of prisoners (into "incorrigible" vs. "improvable hang-off criminals") provides a more specific definition.

Concept history

The term itself is used for the first time by Karl Liebknecht (1871-1919) in his draft "Against the custodial penalty" (1918) and in a publication by Hans Ellger : "The purpose of education in prison" (1922). It experienced its upswing through the development of empirical social sciences and the focus on criminal policy on social disadvantage and stigmatization during the Weimar Republic (1918-1933), which gave rise to criminal law that was initially geared towards social integration (e.g. that of Gustav Radbruch ( 1878–1949) drafted Reich Youth Courts Act (RJGG)). Special prevention as an educational concept was strictly limited in National Socialist Germany (1933–1945) and played a subordinate role. At the end of the war, the idea of ​​rehabilitation found its way into occupation law. In the 3rd Control Council Directive of 1945, re-education and rehabilitation were expressly formulated as goals of the penal system. The first proposals for the principle of an “educational penal system” were made by the “Working Group for Reform of the Penal System” in the 1950s (Leyendecker 2002, p. 50). In the 1960s, the idea of ​​rehabilitation experienced its boom in the FRG. In the GDR, the Prison and Reintegration Act (SVWG) came into force on January 12, 1968, which explicitly includes the idea of ​​education in prison. From 1977, with the Penal Enforcement Act (StVollzG), which came into force in the FRG, social rehabilitation was emphasized as the primary goal of social integration over the other tasks of execution.

Crisis of the term

A departure from the “treatment ideology” in the FRG was already evident in the late 1970s to early 1980s (Leyendecker 2002, p. 51ff.). Criticisms were:

  • the dangers for the restriction of basic rights (dealing with prisoners, influencing techniques)
  • the question of the ineffectiveness of treatment in prison (ineffectiveness, relapse rate).

The ideal of rehabilitation was not only weakened by the empirically controversial and relativized "Nothing Works" thesis (Martinson 1974), but, according to David Garland (2001) and Susanne Krasmann (2003), social perception and dealing with problems of criminality changed. This change can also be described as the return of criminal law to its repressive forms.

Legal basis

Deprivation of liberty and restriction of free life may only take place on the basis of a legal basis. According to Calliess / Müller-Dietz (2003), the legal regulation of the prison system has the following functions: on the one hand, the legal status and treatment of the prisoner according to the social rule of law. On the other hand, it serves to reform and further develop the penal system in line with the purpose of the penal system. The legislature does not have a concept for realizing the idea of ​​rehabilitation. Conceptual suggestions can be found in Cornel 2003 and Leyendecker 2002.

Constitutional position

In 1973 the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) defined rehabilitation as "the reintegration of the offender into society". and enshrined as the "outstanding goal" of the execution of prison sentences. “The constitution requires that the penal system be geared towards the goal of rehabilitation. The individual prisoner has a fundamental right to it. This requirement follows from the self-understanding of a legal community that places human dignity at the center of its value system and is committed to the welfare state principle. ”According to the Federal Constitutional Court, society has an immediate interest in ensuring that the perpetrator does not relapse again. However, the emphasis on constitutional status must not lead to “making someone a mere object of state action” and being forcibly rehabilitated. Hassemer speaks of “the convicted person's right to be left in peace.” Regardless of financial and organizational difficulties, the state has to equip the prison system in such a way as it is necessary to achieve the implementation goal. This is opposed by the fact that the prison system is actually limited (higher prisoner rate, shortage of staff, overcrowding, savings), which can result in the realization of the prison goal being considerably restricted.

Prison Act

On January 1, 1977, the Prison Act (StVollzG) came into force in the Federal Republic of Germany with a stipulation of “rehabilitation as an enforcement goal” in Section 2, Clause 1. Since October 3, 1990, with the Unification Treaty , it has been valid throughout Germany.

§ 2 sentence 1 of the Prison Act formulated the law applicable to the penal law enforcement purpose and a commitment to the social inclusion of offenders: "In the prison sentence, the prisoner should be able to lead the future in a socially responsible life without crime (enforcement destination)." Based on the In practice, the principle of approximation ( § 3 Paragraph 1 StVollzG) can be read as a concretization of the rehabilitation goal: "Life in prison should be brought into line with general living conditions as far as possible." The principle of counteraction ( § 3 Paragraph 2 StVollzG) makes it clear, that the harmful consequences of deprivation of liberty must be counteracted. The principle of integration ( § 3 Paragraph 3 StVollzG) confirms the requirement of rehabilitation by formulating help and support for the prisoner. Section 4 (1) of the StVollzG clarifies: “The prisoner participates in shaping his treatment and in achieving the goal of the execution. His willingness to do this must be aroused and encouraged ” . However, it is difficult to objectify the prisoner's participation. In addition, the rehabilitation measures are only to be seen as offers and not as an obligation. Resocializing measures may not be withheld from prisoners, but neither may they be forced to take them (Feest 1990).

In order to prepare for the release, enforcement is to be relaxed ( Section 15 (1) StVollzG).

Further areas of law of rehabilitation

The general part of the Social Security Code (SGB) contains social rights of the individual vis-à-vis the state. The process of rehabilitation can be classified in a network of institutions and social services, which can be divided into judicial and voluntary assistance to offenders .

  • The tasks of helping offenders are regulated in:

Youth Courts Act (JGG); Child and Youth Welfare Act (KJHG); Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO); Criminal Code (StGB); Federal Social Welfare Act (BSHG)

  • Special and detailed regulations:

Youth arrest enforcement order (UhaftVollzO); Enforcement Ordinance (StVollstrO); Prison Compensation Ordinance (StVollzVergO); Law on the traffic in narcotics (BtMG); Federal Central Register Act (BZRG); Victims Compensation Act (OEG).

For detailed information on the legal areas of rehabilitation see Cornel and Maelicke 2002.

Rehabilitation under conditions of imprisonment

The prison system encompasses and limits all areas of life of the prisoners and thus shows characteristics of a "total institution" ( Erving Goffman ), which stand in the way of rehabilitation. Clemmer (1940/1958) first drew attention to the effect of a negative socialization process in the penal system , which is described in criminology with the term " prisonization ".

The prison sentence sets clear limits to the rehabilitation goal. It complicates the rehabilitation that aims at self-determination, independence and personal responsibility. Precisely these goals are not promoted in enforcement for organizational reasons and due to security aspects. In the Prison Act, the legislature already indirectly refers to these negative effects of deprivation of liberty (in particular Section 3 (1) and (2) StVollzG). From a legal point of view, compliance with security and order in execution does not have priority over the execution goal, but is something that (if necessary) must be guaranteed (AK StVollzG-Feest / Lesting § 2 Rn. 5, 2006). The constitutional task of “protecting the general public” also limits the goal of rehabilitation. Particularly in the case of loosening of enforcement, which are considered to be a prerequisite for successful rehabilitation, restrictions are applied due to the security aspect. The basic rights protection area of ​​rehabilitation is limited in practice by weighing individual cases (probability of a criminal offense). The prison life, which is often characterized by violence, and the adaptation of the prisoners to the prison community (in which problematic subcultural power relations are established) can be described as hostile to rehabilitation. This adaptation to the prison subculture is given priority over life after detention. This increases the risk of recidivism. Baratta shows that prison harbors a number of negative effects and that rehabilitation may only succeed “despite the prison sentence” (Baratta 2001, p. 3).

discussion

  • Not all breaches of norms are associated with social exclusion and the goal of rehabilitation (e.g. white-collar crime). The rehabilitation model presupposes the assumption that economic-social inequality can be the cause of the crime even before the offense is committed. Inmates in prisons come largely from disadvantageous circumstances. “Resocialization (...) thus also describes the process of outsourcing certain groups of the population who are defined as in need of rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is part of social control and selection and thus an expression of state regulatory policy ”(Cornel / Maelicke 1992, p. 12). The ethos of the social rehabilitation model is not to regard all members of society as equal. It is based on three assumptions: 1.) that there are factors that favor crime and that determine the individual (biological, psychological, social or a combination of all three). 2.) That criminals are different from non-criminals. And 3.) that this difference can be based on a (pathological) deviation.
  • As Hassemer (1982) describes, rehabilitation serves to justify deprivation of liberty by the state. The stigmatizing personality intervention and the negative effects of the "total institution" are positively linked to the idea of ​​its "treatment".
  • Due to the lack of a needs-based rehabilitation concept, the quality and verifiability of the effectiveness of rehabilitation aids remains unclear.
  • There is a conflict of objectives between rehabilitation and the enforcement task of security, which must be resolved taking into account the priority of the enforcement objective. Since the federalism reform came into force (2006), which assigns legislative responsibility for the execution of sentences to each individual federal state, a possible preferential position for protecting the population from new criminal offenses has been discussed in individual federal states (Dünkel 2003).

Switzerland

In addition to general efforts within the framework of the normal prison system, a special concept for the rehabilitation of young violent criminals is currently in the foreground of interest. In the Arxhof in the canton of Basel-Landschaft , young male delinquents who v. a. were guilty of serious physical injuries, were therapeutically rehabilitated in open prison for several years. Under the regime of non-violent but strict and strictly regulated house rules, the young people are taught missing ethical norms and values . The focus is on work (an apprenticeship is started at the Arxhof ), therapy and teaching non-violent conflict resolution methods. The recidivism rate of participants in the Arxhof program is around 25 percent, which is lower than that in normal prison systems. The young men acquire by running the program again the ability of ethical her act reprehensible aware of being, which is a basic requirement of re-integration into society.

literature

  • Alessandro Baratta: Rehabilitation or Social Control? For a critical understanding of social “reintegration” . In: G. Bitz u. a. (Ed.): Basic questions of state punishment: Festschrift for Heinz Müller-Dietz on his 70th birthday . Munich 2001, pp. 1–17
  • Rolf-Peter Calliess , Heinz Müller-Dietz : Prison Act . Comment. 2003
  • Donald Clemmer: The Prison Community . 2nd edition New York 1958 (1st edition 1940)
  • Heinz Cornel , Bernd Maelicke: Right of rehabilitation . 2nd edition 1992; 5th edition Baden-Baden 2002
  • Heinz Cornel, Gabriele Kawamura-Reindl, Bernd Maelicke, Bernd Rüdeger Sonnen (Hrsg.): Handbook of rehabilitation . 2nd edition Baden-Baden 2003
  • Gerhard Deimling : "Rehabilitation" in the area of ​​tension between prison and society . In: Journal for the entire field of criminal law . Berlin 1968, pp. 873ff.
  • Gerhard Deimling: Theory and practice of juvenile prison systems from an educational point of view . Neuwied / Berlin 1969
  • Frieder Dünkel: Security as an implementation goal? The turning point in the penal system during the election campaign: an initiative from Hessen . In: New criminal policy . Issue 1/2003, pp. 8-9
  • Hans Ellger: The educational purpose in the penal system . Hall 1922
  • Johannes Feest: Treatment Execution - Criticism and Consequences of Execution Policy . In: Legal worksheets . Neuwied 1990, p. 223 ff.
  • Johannes Feest (Ed.): Commentary on the Penal Code . 5th edition, Neuwied 2006
  • David Garland: The Culture of Control. Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society . Oxford / New York 2001
  • Erving Goffman: Asylums. About the social situation of psychiatric patients and other inmates . Frankfurt a. M. 1973
  • Winfried Hassemer: Rehabilitation and the rule of law . In: Kriminologisches Journal (KrimJ) 14 Jg. Heft 3, 1982, pp. 161–166
  • Günther Kaiser u. a. (Ed.): Small Criminological Dictionary . 3rd edition, Heidelberg / Stuttgart 1993
  • Susanne Krasmann: The crime of society. On the governmentality of the present . Constance 2003
  • Natalie Andrea Leyendecker: (Re) socialization and constitutional law . Writings on criminal law 128, Berlin 2002
  • Karl Liebknecht : Against imprisonment . In: Gesammelte Reden und Schriften , Vol. IX, Berlin 1971, pp. 391ff.
  • Franz von Liszt: The concept of purpose in criminal law . Berlin 2002 (orig. 1882/83)
  • Robert Martinson: What works? Questions and answers about prison reform . Journal of Public Interest, No. 36, Spring 1974, pp. 22-54
  • Heinz Müller-Dietz: Prison legislation and penal reform . Cologne 1970
  • Horst Schüler-Springorum : Prison execution in transition . Goettingen 1969
  • Hartmut Schellhoss: Rehabilitation . In: Kaiser, Günther u. a. (Ed.): Small Criminological Dictionary 3rd Edition, Heidelberg / Stuttgart 1993, p. 429

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ BVerfGE 35, 202 , 235.
  2. ↑ BVerfGE 98, 169 , 200 f.
  3. ↑ Cornel 2003, p. 43; in relation to Bender 1984.
  4. ↑ Hassemer 1982, p. 165.
  5. ↑ BVerfGE 35, 202 , 235 and BVerfGE 40, 284 .
  6. ^ Prison Portal: Prisonization ( Memento from May 29, 2010 in the Internet Archive )
  7. ↑ Report from Sunday, May 9, 2010, 8 p.m. on Swiss Radio DRS 3