Abstract

         In this article, we highlight the need for a multidisciplinary approach, together with the use of complex tools from the EU and the Member States to combat terrorism and the phenomenon of radicalization in prison. Our aim is to identify the main vulnerabilities to the extension of the two phenomena into a universal prison. Our analysis captures the main risks to the post-detention reintegration process, thus emphasizing the need to individualize the instruments and programs of disengagement and de-radicalization. Referring to the EU’s efforts to combat terrorism, we identify the main shortcomings represented by the lack of a unitary, coherent and transnational approach that would facilitate the exchange of information and expertise between Member States.

 Keywords: terrorism, radicalization, prison, European Union.

     Introduction

            The number of terrorist attacks and their victims has visibly increased between 2014 and 2018, in the European Union. The critical point was in 2015 when 17 terrorist attacks were registered (completed, thwarted, and failed), resulting in  150 deaths and 687 arrests.[1] Starting with 2017 the number of terrorist attacks doubled; however, the number of deaths and arrests visibly decreased.[2] By comparison to 2014 (when two terrorist attacks took place, four people were killed, and 395 were arrested), in 2018 there were 24 terrorist attacks, 13 people were killed and 511 were arrested.[3] Terrorism (religious/jihadist) is still a threat to the security and interests of the European Union.[4]

Relating to the EU’s status quo from the past years, in this article we talk about the phenomenon of radicalization in prisons, aiming to highlight the newest challenges that EU and its members face in their efforts to prevent and counter terrorism. When speaking about the phenomenon of radicalization in prisons we mean to identify the main vulnerabilities that enable its amplification and expansion among convicts/ felons.

Our endeavour also aims at identifying the main course of action that the EU means to take as far as preventing, combating, and abolishing terrorism and the phenomenon of radicalization in prisons, while taking into account the good practices in the consultation process that were adopted by the European Council during the Romanian presidency.

      Radicalization in a Criminal Environment: Dimensions and Challenges

           Elusive concepts, terrorism and imprisonment have been defined by intelligence literature,[5] as well as criminal investigation and penology[6] writings, as being the product of society.[7] Psychological constructs,[8] the two have been “dissected” and subjected to scrutiny with respect to the social phenomena and rifts that are ground for the existence and legitimacy of violent actions directed at a certain target/victim.[9] Defined according to different research tools and by the use of specific language and terms, the terrorist phenomenon and the prison system have been described by the phrase “the known unknowns”[10], in order to underline their unpredictability, caused, at the same time, by the actions of the social system generating them.[11] Dedicated works described the two concepts as complex social phenomena, extreme forms of violence (physical and psychological) that damage societies.[12]

          Depicted as phenomena that societies should be defended and protected from,[13] the two concepts have had experts on the matter deal with the need to cast out/isolate (forever, or for a certain period of time), as well as deal with/understand/prevent. As far as their dynamic is concerned, researches on the matter have come to the conclusion that there are two main principles that define it: 1) the principle of the nuclear blast that triggers a chain reaction, and 2) the seemingly chaotic behaviour that doesn’t abide by determining rules.[14] The process of identifying the possible evolution of the two phenomena shows the main difference between them – it lies with a country’s ability to monitor terrorist activities and control the prison system. In the first case, the main challenge is to identify, watch, and understand those who plan and are involved in terrorist activities, with state institutions forced to gather information from an environment beyond their control.[15] In the second case, countries control, monitor, and make use of legitimized violence against the incarcerated.[16] Ever since the beginning the convict is identified and placed in a certain prison.[17] Prisons seem to have institutionalized the power to provide punishment, which entails “the compact use of punitive power: a particular preoccupation with the body and time of the convict, a categorization of their gestures and behaviour by a system of authority and examination; a staged orthopaedics conducted on the convicts with the sole purpose of correcting them individually”.[18] The whole architecture of how the power to provide punishment was institutionalized can be seen in Jeremy Bentham’s[19] (philosopher and social reformer) Pantopticon[20]. The convict’s awareness of the fact that he/she is always monitored contributes to the automatic functioning of the power, even if its action  has discontinuities.[21]

         The strict regulation and delimitation of the incarcerated persons’ lives leads to the restriction or even prohibition of any social interaction between the free world and convicts.[22] Following the logic of defending the national interest, prisons “protect the community from people that are considered dangerous by design.”[23] Just like retirement homes or centres for the blind, prisons are known for the fact that the welfare of detainees isn’t their main concern, on the contrary, as Gresham M’Cready Sykes points out, they function according to the idea that “a convict must live in poverty as a matter of public policy - some kind of 20th century imposed nunnery”.[24]

Besides the existence of this “fundamental segregation”[25] between convicts and their wardens, the main feature that describes the prison as an absolute institution is its ability to “take down all boundaries that separate the most important spheres of life: rest, recreation, and work”[26], which is why all activities take place under the authority of the prison.[27] Based on this concept of total isolation from the outside world, Sykes came up with the concept of an emerging culture inside the prison, which determines the detainees to try and fight against the absolute order enforced by the prison personnel.[28]

         To Bert Useem and Anne Morrison Piehl, prison represents “the ultimate intrusion by the state into the lives of its citizens”[29], a space where the state has authority over the movement and activities of the convicts. Following the same sociologic approaches of Michel Foucault, David Garland, Loïc Wacquant, William Chambliss, Jerome Skolnick, and James O. Whitman both Bert Useem and Anne Morrison Piehl see prisons as “an effort at social domination and exploitation”. The prisons’ official purpose of retribution and control over criminality are seen by Useem and Piehl as alibis for aggression.[30] This point of view was amended by David Garland, according to whom, the way prisons are built shows the magnitude of the anxieties in the culture of modern society, affected by the risky and insecure social and economic relations.[31]

         The isolation of the convicts is illustrated by the French intellectual Loïc Wacquant, who has found a direct link between the prisons’ level of overpopulation and the level of social domination and exploitation. High degrees of occupancy in prisons produce a high level of exploitation and social domination by employees. Exertion of pressure for a long period of time  contributes to the isolation of the inmates from the outside world, reason for which the prison environment becomes typical for ghettos.[32] The symbiosis between the ghetto and prison is where, according to Wacquant, political actors find legitimacy to implement policies for the construction of new spaces destined to exerting control.[33] According to Douglas S. Massey and Nancy A. Denton, the phenomenon of segregation is the offspring of institutions, and its effect is structural, not solitary.

“The term <> means different things to different people (…). A ghetto is [a space] exclusively inhabited by the members of a group, where practically all the members of that group live”.[34]

Bert Useem and Anne Morrison Piehl clarify this observation by affirming the fact that the penitentiary construction policies contribute to these facilities being transformed into  spaces of segregation of inmates. On one hand, building more prisons leads to an increase in the number of crimes for which the courts set high penalties.[35] On the other hand, building new prisons leads to more social and economic problems. The state must decide whether to invest more  in managing the prisons and their inmates, otherwise they would have to reduce the budget per inmate.[36] At the same time, raising the level of isolation of the detainees considerably lowers their chances of social reintegration.[37]  Longer times spent in a prison’s extreme ghetto environment lead to the “breakage” of their social connections and to the assimilation of the rules and customs of the prison environment.[38]

         Radicalization comes simultaneously with the isolation of the individual from the outside world, with his weakening and exposure to a criminal environment.[39] Use of extreme violence, defiance of rules, disregard towards sanctions and integration into crime groups accelerates the radicalization process in prisons.[40] Radicalization gives inmates a sense of purpose in serving their sentence, a personal accomplishment in a system where they felt isolated and insignificant. An important role in this is played by the process of communication and interaction with both crime groups and followers of terrorists groups outside penitentiaries. We believe this comes from the need to motivate and control the behaviour and actions of the detainees. (Inter)national terrorism is one of the greatest threats to global security. Its traits and the effects of its actions have a negative impact on national security, on many levels: economic, military, organizational, social and psychological.[41]

          The overlap of the two phenomena happens when people accused of terrorism go to prison and radicalization sets in while they are incarcerated. The main problem we refer to is represented by the effects generated by inserting radicals in prisons with a view to exploit breaches in the system and vulnerabilities of the prison staff and management. Overcrowding represent a vulnerability to the prison staff; the number of people a radical can interact with is higher, while the resources (human and material) the prison management has at its disposal to monitor the detainees is lower. Isolating vulnerable inmates and assigning them to activities that require a small number of participants are goals that management cannot achieve, which is why supplementary criteria for selecting and separating the convicts cannot be applied.

Overall, we identify three categories[42] of convicts that can turn into radicals: 1) people that have turned into radicals while at large, who the Intelligence Services know that are likely to engage in extremist-terrorist propaganda, and who have been convicted crimes representing  threats to national security; 2) people radicalized while at large, who the Intelligence Services hold little to no information about, and who have been convicted of other crimes; 3) persons who are likely to turn into radicals while in prison, serving their sentence. The three categories are differentiated by the moment of radicalization and by the information the Intelligence Services have on activities conducted outside and inside the prison. The matter reaches an international level the moment the convicted has undertaken radical actions in countries other than theirs. A prompt exchange of information and cooperation between Intelligence Services contribute to the identification of these persons.

     EU’s Efforts to Combat Terrorism and Prison Radicalization 

           While “a national security privilege”,[43] terrorism and the process of radicalization have a transnational dimension and have become a communitarian issues affecting the resilience of the European Union.[44] The main concern of the EU member countries is to identify the best way to integrate immigrants into the national system of cultural, social, and political values.[45]

          At the community level, EUROPOL (originally an inter-governmental cooperation group called TREVI) was created under the Maastricht Treaty, on the 7th of February 1992. It has since become one of the EU’s key agencies, working to improve the efficiency and cooperation of relevant authorities from all member states, to prevent and counters terrorism, the illegal drug trafficking and other types of crimes.[46] Starting with 2003, EUROPOL focused its attention on countering terrorism, seeing it as the EU’s top priority.[47]

Nevertheless, the main lines of EU overall policy have been set by the Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism, the main document regulating the fight against terrorism at the level of the European community. It was adopted in June 2002 with the sole purpose of ensuring “unity in the approach of terrorist crimes at the level of the EU”.[48]

         Included in the EU’s Foreign and Security Policy, the EU’s strategy to countering terrorism “focuses on four pillars”[49]: prevent, protect, pursue, and respond.[50] The EU’s strategy focuses on the identification of terrorist propaganda by using the media, the prison system, and the internet, while simultaneously improving the common infrastructure to prevent terrorist acts. The protection mechanism the strategy promotes is supported by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), the European legal framework regarding the safety of European transport system, the inclusion of biometrical data on passports, and the setting up a viable name record system for all passengers.[51]

          The pursue component prioritizes the identification of suspect money transfers and freezing assets belonging to groups suspected of being involved in terrorist activities. The main instrument of the tracking component is the European Arrest Warrant Agreement, which has simplified the cross-border procedures needed for the extradition process (in some cases, the extradition period has been cut short from “no less than ten years to 42 days”[52]). The Strategy’s response pillar is unchanged. No significant progress has been made. For example, the Solidarity Clause has faded into the background (initially included in the Draft treaty establishing the Constitution of Europe, dated 2004). It stated that the EU member states were ready to offer assistance to member states victim of a terrorist attack, upon request.

          Adopted in 2008 and revised in 2014[53], the EU Strategy focuses on the need to protect its citizens and infrastructure, with a view to diminish vulnerability to terrorist attacks. The new approach is about “securing outer borders, improving the security of the transport system, protecting strategic targets, and reducing the vulnerability of critical infrastructures”,[54] and the main tool for that is the Directive on the use of passenger name record (PNR). [55] The coordinated answer of all EU member states is yet to be achieved and the models of good practices identified by the European Council during the inter pares rounds of evaluation regarding the fight against terrorism have not been - eventually - adopted.[56]

          The Conclusions of the European Council on 6th of June 2019[57] highlight the urgent need to adopt effective measures to prevent radicalization in prisons, at the same time with carrying out rehabilitation and reintegration strategies.[58] The European Council draws attention on the fact that in the next two years some of the terrorist and violent extremist offenders and criminals radicalized while serving their sentences[59] will be released from prisons. Based on recommendations from experts in the steering Committee on radicalization, and on the strategic guidelines regarding a coordinated EU approach to preventing radicalization in 2019,  the European Council recommends EU member states to develop and implement “disengagement programmes allowing the rehabilitation and an effective reintegration of terrorist and violent extremist offenders”.[60] The good practices resulting from the consultations taking place under the Romanian presidency of the European Council are part of a multidisciplinary approach based on four pillars: prevention, sanctioning/detention, rehabilitation and reintegration.[61] The early identification of radicalization and recruitment in prisons requires efficient national policies of coordination, cooperation, and exchange of information.[62] De-radicalization, disengagement and social reintegration are defined by a multidisciplinary approach, with a focus on the need to customize the tools and special programmes based on the needs and special traits of the terrorist and violent extremist offenders (women, minors).[63] Another recommendation of the European Council highlights the need to train prison and probation staff in order to be able and observe cultural differences, “detect the early signs of a radical behaviour and find a way to offer alternate narratives”.[64] The solutions offered by the Council envisage member states joining the European Penitentiary Training Academies (an ongoing project that is co-financed by the “Justice” programme), and cooperating and training with EU agencies such as: the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training, or the Radicalization Awareness Network European Organisation of Prison and Correctional Services.[65] The exchange of information and experience, permanent risk assessment, the dispersion of radicalized persons in order to avoid their contact with vulnerable detainees and prevent them from establishing extremist networks, along with spiritual guidance from religious representatives who can provide “narratives against violent religious ideologies” [66] complete the models of good practices promoted by the European Council.[67]

     Conclusions

          In this article, we highlighted the need for a multidisciplinary approach, together with the use of complex tools from the EU and the Member States to combat terrorism and the phenomenon of radicalization in prisons. Our aim was to identify the main vulnerabilities to the extension of the two phenomena into a universal prison. Our analysis captured the main risks to the post-detention reintegration process, thus emphasizing the need to individualize the instruments and programs of disengagement and de-radicalization. Referring to the EU’s efforts to combat terrorism, we identified the main shortcomings represented by the lack of a unitary, coherent and transnational approach that would facilitate the exchange of information and expertise between Member States.

Bibliography

 Main sources:

 Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism (2002/475/JHA).

The Council of the European Union, EU’Strategy to Combat Terrorism, doc. 14469/4/05, Nov. 2005.

The Council of the European Union, “Information Pertaining the Content and Result of the Evaluations”, Coreper, 13153/2/10 REV 2, ENFOPOL 237, PROCIV 102, PARLNAT 78, Brussels, 22 October 2010 (27.10).

The Council of the European Union, EU’s Revised Strategy Regarding Counter-Radicalization and Recruitment for Terrorist Purposes, JAI 332, ENFOPOL 138, COTER 34, Brussels, 19 May 2014 (OR. en), 9956/14.

The Council of the European Union, “the Council’s Conclusions Regarding the Prevention and Combat of Radicalization in Prison and the Identification of a Solution Regarding the Issue of Terrorist and Violent Extremists Offenders”, CT 55 ENFOPOL 278, COTER 71, JAI 589, COPEN 237, Brussels, 6 June 2019, 9727/19.

EUROPOL, TE-SAT 2019, European Union Terrorism Situation and Trend Report, European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation, 2019.

European Parliament and The Council of the European Union, The 681/2016 Directive on the Use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) for the Prevention, Identification, Investigation and Inquiry of terrorist Actions and Serious Offences, 32016L0681, 24 May 2016.

 Secondary Sources:

 AKERS, Ronald L. and Gary F. JENSEN (eds.), Social Learning Theory and the Explanation of Crime: A Guide for the New Century, Vol. 11, New Brunswich, NJ, Transaction, 2003.

BENTHAM, Jeremy, Panopticon, Works, ed. Bowring, vol. IV, Edinburgh, William Tait, 1843.

BOGZEANU, Cristina, Provocări actuale pentru securitatea europeană (Current Challenges to European Security), Bucharest, National Defence Academy “Carol I” Publishing, 2010.

BURNELL, Peter J. and Peter CALVERT, The resilience of democracy: persistent practice, durable idea, London, Frank Cass, 1999.

CHIRU, Irena and Cristina BARNA (coord.), Contraterorism şi securitate internaţională (Counter Terrorism and International Security), preface prof. PHD. Cristian Troncotă, Cecilia Munteanu, Bucharest, Top Form Publishing, Bucharest, 2007.

COYLE, Andrew, Humanity in Prison. Questions of Definition and Audit, London, International Centre for Prison Studies, 2003.

DURKHEIM, Émile, “Crime et santé sociale”, Revue philosophique, Nr. 39, 1895, pp. 518-523.

DURNESCU, Ioan, Asistenţa socială în penitenciar (Social Services in Prison), Iaşi, Polirom Publishing, 2009.

FLORIAN, Gheorghe, Psihologie penitenciară (Prison Psychology), Bucharest, Oscar Print Publishing, 2002; Ioan Buş, Psihologie şi infracţionalitate (Psychology and Crime), Cluj-Napoca, ASCR Publishing, 2005.

FOUCAULT, Michel, A supraveghea şi a pedepsi. Naşterea închisorii (To Surveil and Punish. How Prisons Came to Be), French translation, afterword and notes, Bogdan Ghiu, Second Edition, Piteşti, Paralela 45 Publishing, 2005 [1975].

FOUCAULT, Michel, Trebuie să apărăm societatea (We Must Defend our Society), Second Edition, translation, Bogdan Ghiu, Cluj, Idea Design & Print, 2009 [1997].

GARLAND, David, The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 2000.

GOFFMAN, Erving, Aziluri. Eseuri despre situaţia socială a pacienţilor psihiatrici şi a altor categorii de persoane instituţionalizate (Asylums. Essays on the Social Status of Psychiatric Patients and Other Types of Institutionalized Persons), Iaşi, Polirom Publishing, 2004 [1961].

JAYAKUMAR, Shashl (ed.), Terrorism, Radicalisation & Countering Violent Extremism. Practical Considerations & Concerns, Singapore, Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.

JOSEPH, Jonathan, Varieties of resilience, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018.

LOWE, David and Austin TURK, Dilip K. DAS (eds.), Examining Political Violence, Studies of Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Internal War, International Police Executive Symposium Co-Publication, CRC Press, London, New York, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, 2014.

MASSEY, Douglas S. and Nancy A. DENTON, American Apartheid, Segregation and the Making of the Underclass, Cambridge, Massuchusetts, London, Harvard University Press, 2001 [1993].

NEUMANN, Peter R., Terrorism in the 21st Century. The Rule of Law as a Guideline for GERMAN Policy, Friedrich Erberto Stiftung, December 2008.

RĂDULESCU, Sorin M. and Dan BANCIU, Sociologia crimei şi criminalităţii (The Sociology of Crime and Criminality), Bucharest, “Şansa” Publishing, 1996.

SILKE, Andrew (ed.), Prisons, Terrorism and Extremism. Critical Issues in Management, Radicalisation and Reform, London, New York, Routledge, 2014.

SYKES, Gresham M’Cready, The Society of Captives. A Study of a Maximum Security Prison, Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1974 [1958].

TONRY, Michael (ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 17, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1993.

TSANG, Steve, Serviciile de informaţii şi drepturile omului în era terorismului global (Intelligence and Human Rights in the Era of Global Terrorism), translation Irina Bondar, Cristina Dogaru, Laura Drăghici, Adelina Negoiţă, Foreword Ambassador George Maior, Bucharest Univers Enciclopedic Publishing, 2008.

USEEM, Bert and Anne Morrison PIEHL, Prison State. The Clallenge of Mass Incarceration, Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo, Cambridge University Press, 2008.

WAQUANT, Loïc, “Deadly Symbiosis: When Ghetto and Prison Meet and Mesh”, Punishment and Society, nr. 3, 2001.

WEBER, Max, Politica, o vocaţie si o profesie (Politics as a Vocation), translation Ida Alexandrescu, Anima, Bucharest, 1992 [1926].

WEBER, Max, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Captialism, Londra, Allen and Unwin, 1930.