Nuova pagina 1

 


Italian Home Contacts Credits ISSN
2282-5754
  
 
Urban Suffering Studies Center

 

 

Access to justice in prison: preliminary evidence from a peer - setting survey

Nuova pagina 1

 

Lucia Dalla Pellegrina Margherita  Saraceno

 

Access to justice is often tight for inmates. Inaccessibility to rights and legal remedies becomes an ancillary penalty that, though not prescribed by the law, actually increases the afflicting dimension of imprisonment. Vulnerable individuals like foreign inmates and prisoners without a family are particularly exposed to the obstacles to a full and effective access to fundamental rights, citizen rights, and legal remedies (especially in the area of family law and civil and administrative procedures). Although prisons offer services to help inmates to solve their legal and administrative issues, being imprisoned puts the inmates in the paradoxical situation of being into the judicial system while being - at the same time - excluded from it.

This not only represents a serious problem of fairness and justice, but presumably frustrates the rehabilitation purposes of punishment. This study is a first attempt to map the main legal needs of prisoners through a peer-setting survey (questionnaires have been administered to the inmates by interviewer-inmates). The investigation has been carried out in 2014 in two prisons: the Casa Circondariale of San Vittore (Milan) and the Casa di Reclusione of Bollate.     Key-words: Access to justice, legal needs prison.  


      *DEMS, University of Milano-Bicocca and Baffi Carefin Centre, Bocconi University. **DEMS, University of Milano-Bicocca and Baffi Carefin Centre, Bocconi University Corrisponding author: e-mail: margherita.saraceno@unimib.it   We would like to thank the Directors Gloria Manzelli and Massimo Parisi, rehabilitation officers Roberto Bezzi and Emanuela Merluzzi and all the inmates who participated to the survey- especially the interviewer-inmates - of the Casa Circondariale of San Vittore (Milan) and the Casa di Reclusione of Bollate. We are grateful also to Laura de Carlo, Fiorenzo de Molli, Silvia Landra, Martina Tombari, Marzia Ravazzini (Casa della Carità), Associazione Articolo 21, for  their help in understanding the complex  life of inmates. Finally, we thank Annika Bozzetti, Ilaria Loda and Mattia Suardi for their excellent research assistance. This research has been developed within the project The Economics of Access to Justice (Grant No. 298470 Marie Curie Intra European Fellowship - 7th European Community Framework Programme at the ACLE, University of Amsterdam) and with the support of Baffi Carefin Centre, Bocconi University and DEMS, University of Milano- Bicocca. All errors are our own.
  Introduction   The debate about access to justice and prison typically focuses on issues related to the right of defense and associated legal tools, including legal aid.[1]When, instead, access to justice concerns ordinary people, the debate usually refers to the satisfaction of every-day legal needs by institutional means.[2]The wide rage of access-to-justice topics that are sensitive for common people in Europa (CEPEJ 2014 and FRA, 2011), the United States (U.S. Dep. of Justice, 2013), Canada (CFCJ, 2012) and Australia (AAGD, 2014) includes the need of prompt, effective, and affordable legal remedies, the suitability of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms especially in specific legal areas like family and commercial law, and the adoption of simple and accessible administrative procedures. Nonetheless, there is a limited number of bottom-up contributions that explore ordinary legal needs and obstacles to access to justice through investigations directly involving people. Among the survey-based contributions, we number Genn (1999) and Genn and Paterson (2001) for the United Kingdom, AM. BAR ASS'N (1994) and LEGAL SERVS. CORP. (2005) and (2009), for the U.S., Currie (2006), (2009a) and (2009b) for Canada, and Coumarelo set al. (2006) for Australia. In the literature about access to justice, a particularly relevant gap concernsthe legal needs of prisoners. Inmates are in the paradoxical position of being within the (criminal) justice system since into custody (they either have a lawyer who looks after their case, or had one before being definitely convicted, they are in touch with the surveillance judge[3]or, sometimes, with the public prosecutor or the investigating magistrate,they are exposed to judicial legal language and procedures, etc.). Nevertheless, because of the restrictions on freedom, prisoners face relevant obstacles to access to justice for all the issues other than their criminal case. These obstacles are well illustrated by Grunseit et al. (2008), which, to our knowledge, is the only access-to-justice survey involving prisoners. However, it has the limit of being based on a very small number of interviews to inmates who are detained in Australian prisons. Inaccessibility to rights and legal remedies becomes an ancillary penalty that, though not prescribed by the law, actually increases the afflicting dimension of imprisonment. This represents both a serious problem of fairness and equity and a threat to the rehabilitation purposes of punishment.[4] Given the impressive number of inmates currently detained in the Italian prisons[5], investigating the access-to-justice problems of prisoners becomes peremptory. This non-technical summary briefly describes some preliminary evidence emerging from a survey aimed at mapping inmates' legal needs in two Italian prisons: the Casa Circondariale of San Vittore (Milano) and the Casa di Reclusione of Bollate (Milano). The survey has been carried out in 2014 within a peer setting survey where some selected interviewer-inmates administered the questionnaires to their prison mates. This project that results from the cooperation between Casa della Carità, the University of Milano-Bicocca (DEMS) and the University of Amsterdam (ACLE) also implies further phases of study. In particular, econometric analyses will be carried out in order to investigate how individual and social characteristics of the prisoners, on the one hand, and institutional/organizational features of the hosting prison, on the other hand, affect access to justice of the inmates. The main evidence emerging from this preliminary data assessment is that imprisonment in itself represents an obstacle to actual access to justice to fundamental rights and citizenship. It also strongly limits the possibility to manage and solve legal issues that typically emerge in the areas of family law, private law and administrative procedures. Data also suggest some interesting hypotheses that must be further verified by using multivariate statistics methodologies. The first hypothesis concerns the fact that prisoners who are already vulnerable because they are foreigners, are not endowed with external social networks like family, and/or are still waiting for a first judgment suffer fora strongly inadequate satisfaction to their legal needs. A further testable hypothesis regards the fact that, although prisons provide services to support inmates in the resolution of their legal problems, limitations related to their life in prison discourage problem resolution; data actually suggest that when prisoners are not restricted in their cells for a long time during the day, prisons services become more effective in satisfying legal needs of the inmates.  

Questionnaire, administration, and response rates  

In order to map civil/administrative legal needs of inmates who are detained in prisons in Milan, a multiple-choice questionnaire has been designed. It includes the following six sections[6]:

  1. Detention: it frames the position of the respondent as a prisoner (judgment phase[7], duration of conviction, residual duration of imprisonment, recidivism, detention regime, lawyer, etc.).
  2. Citizenship and family: it frames personal and social features of the respondent (citizenship, gender, age, religion, education, language comprehension, etc.).
  3. Pending non-criminal legal issues arisen before the detention: it investigates which kind of pending non-criminal legal problems the inmate had before being detained (debts/credits, commercial/private law/tort disputes, family law issues, problems with the Public Administration, etc.).
  4. Resolution of problems arisen before the detention: it investigates both to what extent and how non-criminal legal problems that were pending before the detention have been resolved during the detention.
  5. Non-criminal legal issues arisen during the detention and their resolution: it investigates which kind of non-criminal legal problems the inmate is having/had during the imprisonment and to what extent and how these problems have been resolved.
  6. Fundamental rights: it investigates if the prisoners experienced problems that are related to the fundamental rights including health, discrimination, and education and, if this is the case, how they legally proceeded.

Before administration, the questionnaire has been deeply checked for completeness and understandability purposes. In particular, operators of Casa dellaCarità, rehabilitation staff members from Bollate and S. Vittore, and some prisoner-volunteers who are affiliated to the Association Articolo 21 of Bollate have been asked to provide comments and suggestions about the questionnaire. For the questionnaire administration at S. Vittore, together the rehabilitation staff members, we opted for providing the questionnaire in different languages (Italian, Albanian, Arab, Romanian, French, English, and Spanish). The questionnaire is anonymous. Participants to the survey are provided with a brief letter where the aims of the survey are explained. Inmates are invited to sign the letter both to confirm that they understood the objectives of the research and for privacy law compliance purposes. In this letter, the anonymity of the questionnaire is particularly emphasized. In order to favor the participation to the survey, not only the anonymity of the respondents but also a mechanism of questionnaire collection that does not involve any member of the prison staff have been guaranteed. Besides anonymity, we also recognized that the possibility to receive clarifications about questions involving legal themes was a further priority for the success of the survey. For these reasons, we opted for a peer-setting administration. In particular two inmates have been selected in each section to be trained to administer the questionnaire to their mates. Interviewer-inmates have been selected because assigned to some role of support to the sections ("scribes", librarians, etc.) and then able to move within the section without restrictions. Before starting the survey, questionnaires filled by interviewer-inmates have been used to identify and correct residual ambiguities (pilot-phase). In the spring of 2014, all the inmates detained in the prisons of Bollate and S. Vittore (but those in solitary confinement regime) have been invited to participate to the survey. The response rates, although highly variable across sections, have been excellent overall: 44.5percent for Bollate and 37.1percent for S. Vittore. Certainly the individual effort devoted by the interviewer-inmates mattered in determining the response rates; in some sections the response rate has been extremely high like in the female section of Bollate (76.7%) and in the section of hospitalized prisoners in S. Vittore (88.0%). From a methodological perspective, this peer-setting approach seems to have been a good choice. Actually, multivariate analyses allow controlling for multiple interviewers therefore their different motivations and abilities do not represent a problem for a correct data-analysis. The interviewer-inmates have been also debriefed in order to understand both the difficulties that they faced during the questionnaire administration and the general reaction of the respondents. From an anecdotal perspective, prisoners generally appreciated the aims and the methodology of the survey; especially because many of them consider access to justice a sensitive topic. The quality of the responses (consistency, sample variance, etc.) and the overall number of observations (893 respondents - 526 from Bollate and 367 from S. Vittore) make the resulting dataset are liable starting point to investigate access-to-justice problems in prison. The next section summarizes some preliminary evidence emerging from the dataset.  

Preliminary results

By comparing both institutional information about Bollate and S. Vittore and the questionnaire responses of the inmates of the two prisons, it is clear that these two penitentiaries are very different. Table 1 summarizes the main institutional features of the two prisons, Table 2 describes how they are organized by sections and provides information about the presence of foreigners and women among the inmates; Table 3 encapsulates both individual and social features of the respondents and information about their detention.

Table 1 - Bollate and S. Vittore: institutional featuresa

Prison Bollate S. Vittore
Type Casa di Reclusione Casa Circondariale
Year of foundation 2000 1879
Sections 6 for males and 1 for females 7 for males (2 not working) + 1 for females
Accomod. capacity 976 753
Inmates 1152 988
Type of inmates Defendants,  convicted people Arrested people, defendants, convicted people
Officers 450 654
Rehabilitation staff 15 13
Network officersb 4 (from 2005) 3 (from 2005)
Medical staff 20 MD  and 10 paramedics 9 MD and 65 paramedics
Psychologists 4 11
Social workers 10 n.a.
Volunteers About 100 46
Services/ activities (from year) Sports (2000 ) and Drama activities (2003) Library (2000) Handicraft (various years) Vocational training/ secondary school/ University (2006) Primary school (2000) Office of civil registry/fiscal matters (2012) Legal assistance helpdesk (2003) Office for public health assistance (2000) Job placement (2010) Sports and Drama activities (n.a.) Library (1982) Handicraft (n.a.) Vocational training (2008) Primary school (from foundation) Office of civil registry/fiscal matters (2000) Informative point for legal matters (2005) Office for public health assistance (2008)  
"Open cells" (8.00 a.m - 8.00 p.m) Across-the-board and from the foundation In some sections from January 2014, in others from May 14, limited in Section VI, II Floor.
a During the survey. b They help inmates to manage issues involving institutions outside of the prisons (i.e. embassies for foreign inmates, etc.)

 In particular, from Tables1-3 it emerges that Bollate has a population mostly including Italian people (foreign inmates are 32.3 percent), who are definitely convicted (88.9 percent), with medium-long penalties (average duration 13.2 years). On the other hand, S. Vittore hosts a population where the incidence of foreign inmates who are still waiting for a first-instance judgment is substantial (foreigners are 61.7 percent of the population, 37.3 percent of the respondents is waiting a first-instance judgment while inmates who are definitely convicted are 35.1 percent).This comes as no surprise if we recall that Bollate is a "casa di reclusione" and so it is aimed at hosting prisoners who are definitely convicted, while S. Vittore hosts many arrested people because it is a "casa circondariale". In addition, rehabilitation projects related to long-term imprisonment have been specifically developed in Bollate from its foundation. Also information concerning the employment status prior to imprisonment seems consistent with the profile of the two populations, given the greater incidence of unemployed and occasionally employed people among inmates at San Vittore.

Table 2 - Bollate and S. Vittore: Organization of the Sections, Foreigners and Women

Bollate  S. Vittore
Section Section typea Inmates, of them foreigners (%)b Section Section typea Inmates, of them foreigners (%)b
I Over 50 years 156 29.5 Penale Young men 89 84.3
II Addicted people 182 25.3 II Not working - -
III 30-50 years 148 39.9 III Addicted people 219 45.7
IV Young men/ Students 100 32.0 IV Not working - -
V Work release or semi-custodial 137 25.5 V Men   260 67.3
Femminile Women 91 44.0 VI - I floor VI - II floor Men Sex offenders 180   64 72.8 56.3
VII Sex offenders 338 33.8 VII Hospitalized people   92 34.8
        Femminile Women 84 72.6
  Overall   of them women (%) 1152  15.3 32.3   Overall   of them women (%) 988 14.0 61.7
a Male section, unless otherwise specified. b During the survey.

 Concerning the incidence of women and the average age of the inmates, the two prisons have very similar populations. Respondents are homogeneous also for their family situation: about one-third of the respondents is married, more than two-third has children; about 20 percent are divorced/separated. Yet so different in terms of the incidence of foreigners, responds are homogeneous in terms of religion: about 70 percent is Christian while 13-14 percent is Muslim. Generally, respondents both from Bollate and S. Vittore say that they understand Italian well or well enough; in both prisonsmore that 90 percent of the respondents has at least primary education and more that one-third has at least higher education. Although in both prisons just under 90 percent of respondents is detained according to the ordinary regime, 8.2 percent of the respondents of Bollate is under a work-release or semi-custodial regime, whereas at S. Vittore this happens only for 4.1 percent of the respondents.

Table 3 - Individual and social features of the respondents, and their detention conditions

Prison Bollate S. Vittore
Average age 42.7 43
Good / good enough language comprehension (Italian) 95.5 84.1
Education None Primary Secondary Bachelor None Primary Secondary Bachelor
8.1 54.4 32.6 4.9 5 49.7 36.1 9.2
Employed Unempl. Occasionally Regularly Othera Unempl. Occasionally Regularly Othera
21.9 19.8 48.7 9.6 29.8 23.0 38.5 8.7
Religion Christian Muslim Other Christian Muslim Other
70.1 14.0 15.9 72.6 13.0 14.4
Married 32.0 39.2
Divorced/separated 21.78 20.9
With children 67.4 67.0
Arrested - waiting for the first instance judgment 0 37.3
 Defendants (waiting for II or III instance judgment) 11.1 27.6
Convicted people 88.9 35.1
Paying a personal lawyer 63.3 59.6
Legal aid 21.0 22.8
Court-appointed attorney 7.0 13.4
First time in prison 53.6 49.7
Penalty duration: average 13.2 8.0
Residual penalty: average 8.0 6.9
Imprisonment regime Ordinary Work release or semi-custodial Other Ordinary Work release or semi-custodial Other
87.9 8.2 3.9 88.5 4.1 7.4
a Student and retired people

 Table 4 shows preliminary evidence about civil/administrative legal problems and their resolution among inmates. The most common problems that were pending at the moment of the incarceration concern family law matters and issues with the Public Administration including fines/administrative sanctions and tax/duties/contributions. 46.1 percent of respondents at Bollate and 68.8 percent at S. Vittore had pending legal problems before the imprisonment, but in both prisons only 15 percent of respondents has somehow resolved the pending issues. More than 10 percent of respondents gives up because in prison. Inmates mainly appeal to their criminal lawyer, relatives, and other inmates forlooking for a solution to their non-criminal legal problems. During the imprisonment, more than 60 percent of respondents have experienced problems related to the release or renewal of administrative documents (mainly driving license and identity card). Only few respondents have been able to solve the problems in less than 6 months (16 percent at Bollate and 8 percent at S. Vittore). It is worth noticing that services that are provided within the prison seem to have some role in the resolution of the issues related to the release/renewal of documents: in order to solve problems related to administrative documents, more than 25 percent of respondents of Bollate turned to the prison staff and 12 percent of S. Vittore to volunteers who cooperate with the prison.      

Table 4 - Legal problems related to non criminal matters, and their resolution

Prison Bollate S. Vittore
Respondents with pending legal problems at the moment of incarceration 46.1 68.8
Predominant legal problems arisen before the imprisonment (%)a Fines/Admin. sanctions 11.9 Fines/Admin. sanctions 16.4
Othersb 8.0 Family law matters 8.7
Family law matters 6.0 Tax/Duties/Contributions 8.0
Predominant counterpart in problems arisen before the imprisonment (%)a Othersc 16.0 Public Administration 24.2
Public Administration 14.2 Spouse/partner 10.2
Spouse/partner 7.7 Othersc 20.7
Respondents who solved the problems 15.0 15.3
Respondents who gave up because in prison 10.9 13.3
Who has been contacted  in order to try to find out a solution to the pending problems (%)d Personal criminal lawyer 15.9 Personal criminal lawyer 21.8
Other inmates 6.8 Family 13.1
Family 5.9 Other inmates 7.5 
Document release/renewal during the imprisonment (%)e Respondents who had/have problems 61.7 Respondents who had/have problems 66.1
Solved in less than 6 months 16.0 Solved in less than 6 months 7.9
Solved in more than 6 months or not solved yet 84.0 Solved in more than 6 months or not solved yet 92.0
Who has been contacted  in order to try to find out a solution to the document problemsa Family/friends 26.7 Family/friends 39.5
Prison staff 25.5 Personal criminal lawyer 36.5
Personal criminal lawyer 22.7 Volunteers 12.0
Respondents who had/have legal problems during the incarceration 52.7 74.9
Predominant legal problems arisen duringthe imprisonment (%)a Othersf 14.8 Othersg 14.6
Family law matters 10.2 Family law matters 13.72
Eviction-repossession 7.6 Loss of subsidies/ Economic aid for the family 10.0
Respondents who solved the problems 9.3 15.5
Respondents who gave up because in prison 11.6 11.2
Who has been contacted  in order to try to find out a solution to the problems (%)d Personal criminal lawyer 13.1 Personal criminal lawyer 21.7
Other inmates 9.5 Family 17.9
Family 7.1 None 7.5 
  1. The three most frequent categories are reported.
  2. Unspecified problems other than Inheritance, Bankruptcy, Eviction - repossession,Tax/duties/contributions, Permit to stay, Labour contracts, Contractual liability, Damages/Torts.
  3. Unspecified counterparts other than employers, suppliers and clients, relatives but the spouse.
  4. The three most frequent categories are reported.The questionnaire also reported the following choices: another lawyer,officers, rehabilitation staff, social workers, the priest, MD, network officers, volunteers, none.
  5. Mainly identity card and driving license, then permit of stay.
  6. Unspecified problems other than Inheritance, Bankruptcy, Loss of subsidies/Economic aid for the family,Tax/duties/contributions, Permit to stay, Labour contracts, Contractual liability, Damages/Torts.
  7. Unspecified problems other than Inheritance, Bankruptcy, Eviction - repossession, Tax/duties/contributions, Permit to stay, Labour contracts, Contractual liability, Damages/Torts.

  As in the case of problems that were pending at the moment of the incarceration, the group of respondents who say they have or have had non-criminal legal issues during the imprisonment is significantly larger at S. Vittore than at Bollate (74.9 vs 52.7 percent). Again, the most common problems are related to family law matters, but also to property law and administrative law including evictions, repossessions and loss of subsidies and family support grants. It is worth noticing that being in prison seems to lead to an increase in legal needs: in both prisons the number of respondents reporting non-criminal legal issues increases by about 6 percent with imprisonment. The two penitentiaries have similar rates of inmates who give up trying to solve their legal issues because in prison (about 11 percent). Only few respondents declare to have been able to resolve problems that arose during the imprisonment (9.3 percent at Bollate and 15.5 percent at s. Vittore).Again, inmates mainly turn to their criminal lawyer and to relatives to manage pending legal issues; prisoners of Bollate also declare they ask their mates for help. Table 5 summarizes the evidence about problems related to access to health care, discrimination and access to education. For the most part, but in the case of access to education, respondents did not experience severe problems. Nonetheless, a relevant number of respondents has (seldom or often) faced problems related to health, discrimination and/or education. The most frequent are those related to access to health care: among the respondents, 39.3 percent at Bollate and 45.4 percent at S. Vittore have had this kind of problems. The most part of prisoners who have had problems never legally proceeded; the number of respondents who successfully proceeded is very limited.  

Table5 -Fundamental rights

    Bollate S. Vittore
Respondents who have had severe problems related to access to health care during the detention (%) No 60.7 54.6
Yes, seldom 17.9 23.3
Yes, often 21.4 22.1
Did you legally proceed? (%) No 72.1 54.4
Yes, but in vain 15.7 33.3
Yes, successfully 12.2 12.3
Respondents who have suffered from injuries /violence during la detention (%) No 81.4 79.0
Yes, seldom 14.8 15.9
Yes, often 3.8 5.1
Did you legally proceed? (%) No 59.8 51.5
Yes, but in vain 24.1 25.8
Yes, successfully 16.1 22.7
Respondents who have discriminated during la detention (%) No 84.1 79.5
Yes, seldom 11.4 11.6
Yes, often 4.5 8.9
Did you legally proceed? (%) No 61.5 54.2
Yes, but in vain 20.0 40.7
Yes, successfully 18.5 5.1
Respondents who have discriminated by the prison staff (%) No 68.9 70.6
Yes, seldom 22.3 18.3
Yes, often 8.8 11.1
Did you legally proceed? (%) No 78.5 52.8
Yes, but in vain 14.8 36.0
Yes, successfully 6.7 11.2
Respondents who have had problems related to access to education during the detention (%) I am not interested in 30.0 25.4
No 19.6 30.9
Yes, but not enough 11.9 18.9
Yes 38.5 24.8
Did you legally proceed? (%) No 63.0 61.4
Yes, but in vain 21.0 23.5
Yes, successfully 16.0 15.1

 Conclusions

Provided that this report is a brief summary just going through the data that we collected thanks to a survey which has been carried out in Bollate and S. Vittore, some very preliminary considerations can be cautiously drawn. These will be deepened in further phases of the project by using multivariate methodologies. First of all, the largest part of the prisoners has pending non-criminal legal problems at the moment of the imprisonment.Moreover, imprisonment results in an augmented number of inmates who face legal issues which are not directly related to their criminal story. Prisoners' legal needs are mainly related to family law matters, property law issues and administrative procedures. Often legal needs of prisoners involve ordinary activities like the release or the renewal of standard documents. Imprisonment in itself represents a recurrent cause to give up trying to solve legal problems.Rarely inmates find institutional support to their legal needs within the prison.In fact prisoners turn to relatives and their criminal lawyers to manage pending issues. Therefore, it is plausible that people who cannot count on their family network and/or on a personal lawyer suffer from a very limited access to justice. Although the two prisons host quite homogeneous populations for age, gender, family situation, education and religion,statistics show that the share of respondents who face non-criminal legal problems is systematically (both before and after the incarceration) larger at S. Vittore than at Bollate. This might presumably be explained by the significantly higher incidence of foreigners in the population of S. Vittore. Prison services to support inmates' legal needs seem to be significantly used only for document release and renewal. Although both prisons provide offices of civil registry, fiscal matters and legal assistance helpdesks, Bollate' services seem to be more effective than those of S. Vittore. To this regard, data suggest two non-mutually exclusive hypotheses that need to be further investigated by econometric techniques. The hypotheses are related to two relevant differences between Bollate and S. Vittore. In particular, in the latter there is a significantly larger presence of prisoners who are still waiting for a first-instance judgment. Second, from the organizational perspective, S. Vittore removed strict limitations to the possibility for inmates to move within their sections only very recently. These two factors may have had some role in the effectiveness of the service support provided by the two penitentiaries.  Preliminary evidence that Bollate is more effective in supporting its inmates for the release/renewal of documents might be explained by the fact that prisoners can move within the prison with less restriction than in S. Vittore (as shown in Table 2, the so called "open cells" is a long established regime in Bollate and has been more widespread applied than in S. Vittore). Mobility might simply result in a more effective use of services by inmates. On the other hand, an inmate who is still waiting for a first-instance sentence is paradoxically in an even more disadvantaged situation than the other prisoners. In fact, the former is often excluded from many rehabilitation programs and activities (given the presumption of innocence) and suffers from many limitations (related to investigation procedures etc.). The fact of being partially excluded from ordinary life in prison might reduce the access to services and tools aimed at supporting the "non-criminal legal needs" of prisoners. From a policy perspective, the present summary highlights that a relevant effort is needed to avoid that imprisonment limits or even prevents access to justice of prisoners. Otherwise, the systematic denial of their non-criminal legal needs becomes an ancillary penalty that would harass especially those inmates who are vulnerable because of their personal/social conditions (foreigners / people who do not have a family network) or because of some disadvantaged conditions of imprisonment (scarce mobility or being still waiting for a first-instance sentence).

References

AAGD - Australian Attorney-General's Department (2014). Annual Report 2013-2014.

AM. BAR ASS’N (1994), Legal Needs and Civil Justice: A Survey of Americans, Major Findings from the Comprehensive Legal Needs Study. www.abanet.org/legalservices/downloads/sclaid/legalneedstudy.pdf.

Cappelletti, M., Garth, B., Weisner, J., and K.F. Koch. (1979). Access to Justice. HeinOnline.

CEPEJ. (2014) CEPEJ report evaluating European judicial systems - 2014 edition (2012 data) - CEPEJ Studies No. 20.

CFCJ. (2012). The Cost of Justice. Weighing the Costs of fair and Effective Resolution to Legal Problems. The Canadian Forum on Civil Justice.

Coumarelos, C., Wei, Z. and A.Z. Zhou. (2006). Justice made to measure: NSW legal needs survey in disadvantaged areas. Access to justice and legal needs, vol. 3, Law and Justice Foundation of NSW, Sydney.

Currie, A. (2006). A national survey of the civil justice problems of low and moderate income Canadians: Incidence and patterns. 13, International Journal of the Legal Profession, 217-242.

(2009a). The legal problems of everyday life. In R.L. Sandefur (Ed.), Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance, Vol. 12, 1-41. Bingley, UK: Emerald.

(2009b). A lightning rod for discontent: Justiciable problems and attitudes towards the law and the justice system. In A. Buck, P. Pleasence, and N.J. Balmer (Eds.), Reaching further: Innovation, access and quality in legal services, 100-114. Legal Services Research Centre. UK: The Stationery Office.

FRA (2011). Access to justice in Europe: An overview of challenges and opportunities European. Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Publications Office of the European Union.

Genn, H. (1999). Paths to justice: What people think about going to law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Genn, H. and A. Paterson. (2001). Paths to justice Scotland: What people in Scotland do and think about going to law. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.

Grunseit, A., Forell, S., McCarron, E. (2008) Taking justice into custody - Access to Justice and Legal Needs Vol. 5. Law and Justice Foundation of New Wales.

LEGAL SERVS. CORP. (2005). Documenting the Justice Gap in America: The Current Unmet Civil Legal Needs of Low-Income Americans 2005.www.lsc.gov/sites/default/files/LSC/images/justicegap.pdf

(2009). Documenting the Justice Gap in America: The Current Unmet Civil Legal Needs of Low-Income Americans, 2009. www.lsc.gov/JusticeGap.pdf .

Mattei, U. (2006). Access to Justice, Costs, and Legal Aid.  XVII Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law. Utrecht, The Netherlands

Pleasence, P., Balmer, N. J., Buck, A. (2008). The health cost of civil-law problems: Further evidence of links between civil-law problems and morbidity, and the consequential use of health services. 5, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 351-373.

Pleasence, P., Balmer, N.J., Buck, A., O’Grady, A., H. Genn. (2004). Civil law problems and morbidity. 58, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 552-557.

Pleasence, P., Balmer, N.J., Buck, A., Smith, M., and A. Patel. (2007). Mounting problems: Further evidence of the social, economic and health consequences of civil justice problems. In Pleasence, P., Buck, A., and N.J. Balmer, (Eds.), Transforming lives: Law and social process, 67-92. London: Legal Services Commission.

Rhode, D.L. (2004). Access to justice. Oxford University Press, USA.

Saraceno, M. (2008) Access to Justice and Litigation Trade-Off: A Theoretical Analysis. Paolo Baffi Centre Research Paper No. 2008-29; CLEA 2008 Meetings Paper.

Stratton, M., and T. Anderson. (2008). Social, economic and health problems associated with a lack of access to the courts. Edmonton: Canadian Forum on Civil Justice.

UNDP. (2004). Access to Justice: Practice Note. United Nations Development Program Publications.

U.S. Department of Justice (2013). The Access to Justice Initiative of the U.S. Department of Justice. Access to Justice Accomplishments. Available at http://www.justice.gov/atj/accomplishments.pdf

Varano, V. And A. De Luca. (2007). Access to Justice in Italy. 7, Global Jurist (Advances, art. 6).

 

By the same authors:  Access to justice: A variable for socio-economic development   Migration Regulation:the Displacement Effects of Emergency Rules. Evidemnce from the Legal Advice Service of Casa della Carità  

By the same authors:  Migration Regulation:the Displacement Effects of Emergency Rules. Evidemnce from the Legal Advice Service of Casa della Carità  


 
Bookmark and Share
  Sostenitori

Center for urban suffering

The study centre wishes to study the phenomenon of urban suffering, in other words the suffering that is specific to the great metropolises. Urban Suffering is a category that describes the meeting of individual suffering with the social fabric that they inhabit. The description, the understanding and the transformation of the psychological and social dynamics that develop from the meeting of ...

Who we are

The Urban Suffering Studies Center - SOUQ - arises from Milan, a place of complexity and economic and social contradictions belonged to global world.Tightly linked to Casa della Carità Foundation, which provides assistance and care to unserved populations in Milan (such as immigrants legal and illegal, homeless, vulnerable minorities), the Urban Suffering Studies Center puts attention on ...

Staff

Centro studi Souq Management commitee: Laura Arduini, Virginio Colmegna (presidente), Silvia Landra, Simona Sambati, Benedetto Saraceno ; Scientific commitee: Mario Agostinelli, Angelo Barbato, Maurizio Bonati, Adolfo Ceretti, Giacomo Costa, Ota de Leonardis,  Giulio Ernesti, Sergio Escobar, Luca Formenton, Francesco Maisto, Ambrogio Manenti, Claudia Mazzucato, Daniela ...
< Ultimo aggiornamento
  Editorials   Theory waiting for practice   Practice waiting for theory   Papers   References  

Nuova pagina 1

ISSN 2282-5754 Souquaderni [online] © by SOUQ - Centro Studi sulla Sofferenza Urbana - CF: 97316770151
Last update: 26/11/2020
 

[Area riservata]