Radicalisation of the young in prison – How can we reform this breeding ground of radicalisation?
Overcrowded facilities, young men squeezed into cells, insufficient staff - that’s the stereotypical picture of prisons creating a breeding ground for the spread of extremism. But what does the reality in Europe’s prisons look like and which measures are taken in order to address the issue of radicalisation?
When aiming to address radicalisation processes, it is crucial to take a close look at the prison environment, where complex social processes are in place. They need to be taken into account in order to combat threatening downward spirals of criminality.
Radicalisation in prisons is not a new phenomenon but it is a well-known breeding ground for political and ideological extremism due to the concentration of “angry young men” in prisons. Having already made experiences in the use of violence, young male prisoners offer a large pool of potential recruits for extremist groups. Because of the recent terrorism cases involving former prisoners, this special environment came into the focus of research and social services practitioners as well as the media. In this context, the current discourse focusses on the reorganisation of the institutions and on the general reform of the criminal justice system in order to minimize the risks of radicalisation. The aim is to protect and successfully reintegrate young people already during and also after their prison sentence.
Several European institutions, such as the European Council or the European Commission, have created frameworks for improving prison conditions in a way that help preventing radicalisation. They continuously stress the need for individualised approaches as it became apparent that one-size-fits-all solution do not work. These frameworks contain relevant cornerstones that in any case have to be considered in order to create sustainable effects:
First, proper risk assessment and identification is necessary. A recommended approach is a two-step procedure of first screening the subjects and to go on with an extensive observation only if the former turns out suspiciously. It is important to take into account diverse sources of information while monitoring, so no premature labels are conferred. In this context it needs to be emphasized that religious practice or rediscovering belief is not to be mistaken for radicalisation. Such stereotypes need to be avoided as especially Muslim prisoners report that they are more and more confronted with hatred and discrimination. For example, their cells are searched on a regular basis and they are under intense observation by prison guards. Establishing a fair and equal situation would already represent a considerable step in the fight of radicalisation, as its source is often to be found in a feeling of general social rejection. Accomplishing this requires overcoming prejudices, stereotypes and personal biases. Therefore, prison staff needs to be specially trained. It is very beneficial if the staff knows about inmates’ backgrounds and the essentials of extremist branches, while there is additional expert staff supervising and coordinating programmes.
Second, besides the social environment also the physical environment plays a role. Prisons have to be well-organised. So-called deregulating factors, such as overcrowding, lack of staff and inadequate facilities, can have escalating effects on radicalisation processes. If such triggers are minimised, the spread of extremism might be limited as well.
The third and last recommendation is probably the most pivotal one. It concerns the rehabilitation of prisoners. Rehabilitating interventions can be done in several domains: First and foremost, involvement with the inmate’s old social environment – respectively the non-violent, non-criminal members thereof – is central to establishing a healthy network for a later return to an orderly lifestyle. Fostering positive relationships offers support for a successful reintegration into society. Also, mentoring programmes can come in here, especially for already radicalised people. “Formers” might be helpful in working as a role model – guiding the way to exit extremist groups. Moreover, also theological interventions prove to be of relevance, because particularly a religious approach might help prisoners to find a new community and a new pathway back into society. Priests for example are well-respected, they don’t belong to the criminal justice system and they can therefore provide counter-narratives to extremist ideologies or for preventing radicalisation.
In conclusion it becomes clear that there are several ways for improving prison life in order to reduce the risk of youth radicalisation. Every country’s system is designed a bit different and is facing different problems, therefore these strategies need to be adapted to fit the individual cases. While all listed imperatives are important steps for a state taking measures against the increase of radicalisation, it is crucial to stress that prisons are not the main incubator and that they are not the main resource for radical movements. They are merely part of the greater social matter.