Give a chance for rehabilitation!

What are the consequences of imprisonment? The deprivation of liberty for a fixed term, as a criminal penalty for an offence committed, involves isolating the convicted person from society and forcibly confining them to a penal institution. It is imposed in cases where the court deems the defendant a danger to society, and that their rehabilitation and re-education are possible only under conditions of isolation from society.

But what is the outcome? Once a person has served the term established by the court, they return to society and must adapt to life in a normal social environment all over again.

Often, time spent in prison leaves a significant negative mark on a convict's psyche and their subsequent destiny. In most cases, such individuals are shunned by those close to them; upon release, it is not easy for them to find employment (few employers wish to have someone with a criminal record among their staff), and they often have nowhere to live, as they lose the ability to return to their former place of residence during their sentence. All of this makes a person resentful towards humanity and vulnerable to committing new crimes. It is not uncommon for those who have already spent time in ‘places not so remote’ to return there again.

But is it possible to prevent such a course of events, to give someone who has made a mistake (after all, to err is human) the opportunity to reform without changing their social environment or depriving them of normal functioning within society?

In most countries around the world, there is an ongoing search for non-custodial forms of punishment and the improvement of ways and methods of influencing offenders. Back in 1980, the Sixth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders adopted Resolution No. 8, which recommends that UN member states expand the use of non-custodial sanctions and conduct an intensive search for new types of punishment.

The Seventh UN Congress (1985) in its Resolution No. 61 called for a reduction in the number of persons sentenced to imprisonment and an expansion in the use of alternative measures. The result of the Eighth Congress was the draft of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules), which were adopted by a UN General Assembly resolution. The significance of this international document lies in the fact that, based on the study of the development of national legislation and many years of penal practice, it proclaims the basic principles for the use of non-custodial measures and defines the purpose and scope of alternative punishments.

In Ukraine, the execution of punishments alternative to imprisonment is carried out by the criminal-executive inspection. Its remit includes the execution of punishments such as the prohibition to hold certain positions or engage in certain types of activity, community service, correctional labour, and the referral of persons sentenced to restriction of liberty to the place of serving their sentence. The primary volume of the criminal-executive inspection’s work consists of monitoring the behaviour of persons released from punishment on probation.

In the city of Chuhuiv and the Chuhuiv district, these functions are performed by the Chuhuiv inter-district department of the criminal-executive inspection of the State Department of Ukraine for Execution of Punishments in the Kharkiv region, headed by the department chief, Lieutenant Colonel of the internal service, Volodymyr Anatoliiovych Chobotok.

Looking towards Western countries and adopted international acts, the Chuhuiv criminal-executive inspection is actively searching for new ways and methods of working with offenders. Today, it is no longer just a controlling body, but, so to speak, a ‘body for the social rehabilitation of convicts’. The primary task of the inspection staff is to convince the convict to embark on the path of reform and to lead a socially adequate, law-abiding lifestyle. It is also their role to study the social situation and psychological characteristics of each person under their supervision and to promote their change for the better.

To implement this social function, the Chuhuiv criminal-executive inspection has concluded cooperation agreements and works closely with the Chuhuiv city and district centres for social services for families, children, and youth, as well as child protection services. Experts from these services, together with criminal-executive inspection officers, conduct assessments of the material and living conditions of those under supervision at their place of residence with the aim of providing further assistance in employment, resolving social and domestic problems, addressing medical issues, and overcoming drug and alcohol dependency.

Joint group preventive measures are organised for minors and young people, involving professionals from various fields to educate the convicts and encourage a healthy, law-abiding lifestyle. Specialists—psychologists, medical professionals, educators, social workers, and representatives of other professions—work with the convicts.

Such versatile work with the convict allows for influence not only on their personality but also on their social environment, without isolating them from society. And society, in its turn, should have a positive influence on the convict.

An analysis of the penal system’s operations shows that those sentenced to alternative punishments commit repeat offences less frequently than those who have served time in places of imprisonment.

Undoubtedly, individuals guilty of committing crimes that pose a serious danger to the state and society deserve punishment in the form of imprisonment.

But if a person who has stumbled has the desire to reform and lead a normal life, then why not give them such a chance?!