Law and doctrine regarding prison interviews for inmates guilty of crimes restricting rights: an exploratory field investigation

Abstract

The previous law regulating prison procedures (Dpr n.431/1976) allowed prisoners four monthly one-hour interviews with family and third parties and a further two visits for good behaviour and for actively collaborating in rehabilitation programmes. The current law on procedures (Dpr n.230/2000) provides for six interviews per month for both convicted prisoners and others interned but not held criminally liable on grounds of diminished responsibility. However, this number may not exceed four per month for inmates to which the first sentence of the first comma, art. 4 bis O.P., save for the severely infirm, or those with offspring younger than 10 years, or when special circumstances occur. This paper seeks to ascertain whether the number of monthly visits have actually been reduced for the most dangerous inmates in the light of the new tighter regulations. An investigation was conducted at the Casa Circondariale di Catania Bicocca, a prison with a population made up mainly of inmates classified as High Security, found guilty of crimes to which applies the first sentence of the first comma of art. 4 bis, O.P., and therefore subject to the restrictions on interviews imposed by the New Procedural Regulations. Two samples of approximately 50 inmates each were selected at random from those who had had interviews with family or third parties in the second half of the years 1999 and 2004 respectively. These were compared in order to highlight any differences between the old and new laws. The comparison of the two samples did not reveal any great differences as regards the effects of the new rules on visits, as maybe was the intent of the new more restrictive law. However, doubts regarding constitutional legitimacy have been raised by some of the doctrine and some of the judiciary authorities involved regarding the presumed violation of the dual protection of freedom of communication provided by law and judiciary and the diatribe persists.