Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prison Leave in Romania and the Power of Street Level Bureaucrats

  • Published:
European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper analyses the policy and legal framework around prison leave in Romania. Prison leave practice is also analysed based on interviews with prison staff. The paper explores the historical evolution of prison leave in Romania, covering both the use of leave as a reward and the application of discretion in awarding leave. In the first part, we will provide contextual information about prisons and prison regime in Romania. In the second part of the paper, we will introduce the rules and regulations relating to prison leave and will comment on these. The conclusion of this analysis is that the decision-making process continues to allow too much discretion in relation to prison leave, and this may create problems for procedural justice and legitimacy. Prison guards—those called to trigger the rewards procedure—enjoy vast amounts of unguided power, and the appeal mechanisms are sometimes informal or inaccessible for prisoners. The article calls for in-depth empirical research on this topic and puts forward a few recommendations intended to improve the policy regarding prison leave in Romania. The article further discusses a number of improvements which would make the practice of awarding prison leave more predictable and equitable for prisoners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. On the history of the prison system in Romania. Available at: https://legeaz.net/dictionar-juridic/istorie-sistem-penitenciar-romanesc

  2. Moldova is one of the historical provinces of Romania.

  3. See one of the conclusions of this congress regarding conditional release: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100356923.

  4. Available at: https://books.google.ro/books?hl=en&lr=&id=n2HLBPlmp2cC&oi=fnd&pg=PP6&dq=prisons+in+romania&ots=qeWrHR1xvV&sig=0gvC_tjeCbRfZZzsDvmvnZ2i%2D%2Dw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=prisons%20in%20romania&f=false

  5. World Prison Brief Data—Available at: http://www.prisonstudies.org/country/romania

  6. According to the ECtHR jurisprudence (see Mursic v. Croatia, 20.10.2016), each prisoner should enjoy at least 3 m2 in the prison cell. The Romanian national legislation—through Law no. 169/2017—grants each prisoner at least 4 m2 (Art. 1).

  7. Idem 3

  8. During the Communist times, the prisons were under the authority of the Ministry of Home Affairs. Since 1991, they have been under the Ministry of Justice.

  9. Each prison is divided in different wings or sections. In every prison, there is one wing for newcomers—the quarantine. Apart from that, there are wings for preventive arrest, for juveniles and for women. Usually, one wing or section accommodates prisoners classified in the same prison regime.

References

  • Atkins, B., Pogrebin, M. (1982). Invisible justice system: Discretion and the law. Anderson Pub.

  • Balan, I. (2000) Regimul concentrationar din Romania. Fundatia Academia Civica.

  • Bauwens, A., Robert, L., & Snacken, S. (2012). Conditional release in Belgium: How reforms have impacted recall. European Journal of Probation, 4(1), 19–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boldur Latescu, G. (1994). ‘Gulagul romanesc in cifre’. In Memoria ca forma de justitie. Sighet.

  • Cheliotis, L. K. (2005). The prison furlough programme in Greece. Punishment and Society, 7(2), 201–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheliotis, L. K. (2008). Before the next storm: Evidence-based reminders about temporary release. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(4), 420–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. C. (1969). Discretionary justice. A preliminary inquiry. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dünkel, F., & Van Zyl, D. (2001). Imprisonment today and tomorrow: International perspectives on prisoners’ rights and prison conditions. The Hague: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durnescu, I. (2009). Asistenta sociala in penitenciar. Iasi: POLIROM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durnescu, I., Istrate, A., Teoroc, C., Pitiu, E., & Rotariu, L. (2016). Routes to freedom: Romanian and Roma prisoners finding their ways back into Romanian society. In R. Armstrong & I. Durnescu (Eds.), Parole and Beyond. International Experiences of Life After Prison (pp. 271–302). Palgrave.

  • Galligan, D. (1986). Discretionary powers: A legal study of official discretion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelsthorpe, L. and Padfield, N. (2003). Exercising discretions. Decision-making in the criminal justice systems and beyond. Portland: Willan Publishing.

  • Handler, J. (1986). The conditions of discretion: autonomy, community, bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage.

  • Hawkins, K. (2002). Law as last resort: prosecution decision-making in a regulatory agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Helmus, L. M., & Ternes, M. (2017). Temporary absences from prison in Canada reduce unemployment and reoffending: Evidence for dosage effects from an exploratory study. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(1), 23–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helsinki Watch Report (1992). Prison conditions in Romania. Available at: https://books.google.ro/books?hl=en&lr=&id=n2HLBPlmp2cC&oi=fnd&pg=PP6&dq=prisons+in+romania&ots=qeWrHR1xvV&sig=0gvC_tjeCbRfZZzsDvmvnZ2i%2D%2Dw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=prisons%20in%20romania&f=false.

  • Ilie, C. (2015). ‘De jure’ and ‘de facto’ situation in the detention system case study: Romania. Journal of Arts and Humanities., 4(2), 20–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, J. M., & Holt, S. B. (2019). Examining the influence of representative bureaucracy in public and private prisons. Policy Studies Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12367.

  • King, R. D. (1996). Prisons in eastern Europe: Some reflections on prison reform in Romania. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(3), 215–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrauri, E. (2019). Reducing discretion in the administration of prison leave: In search of legitimacy. European journal on Criminal Policy and Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-019-09424-4.

  • LeClair, D. P. (1978). Home furlough program effect on the rates of recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 5(3), 249–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeClair, D. P., & Guarino-Ghezzi, S. (1991). Does incapacitation guarantee public safety? Lessons from the Massachusetts furlough and prerelease programs. Justice Quarterly, 8(1), 9–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucrats. New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, D., & Keinänen, A. (2012). The ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ of prisons: Carceral geography and home visits for prisoners in Finland. Fennia, 190(2), 62–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, S. S. (1982). Discretion in the criminal justice system: Analyzing, channeling, reducing and controlling it. Emory Law Journal, 31(3), 603–633.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Administration of Prisons (2018). Raport Anual de Activitate. Internal document.

  • Stefan, B. (2006). Mediul penitenciar romanesc. Cultura si civilizatie carcerala. Iasi: Institutul European.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice., 30, 283–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Zyl Smit, D. (1988). Leave of absence for west German prisoners. The British Journal of Criminology., 28(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warr, J. (2015). The deprivation of certitude, legitimacy and hope: Foreign national prisoners and the pains of imprisonment. Criminology & Criminal Justice, pp., 1–18.

  • Whitehead, J. T., & Woodward, V. (2017). Ethical issues in probation, parole, and community corrections. In M. C. Braswell, B. R. McCarthy, & B. J. McCarthy (Eds.), Justice, crime, and ethics. Routledge.

  • Wooditch, A., Duhaime, L., & Meyer, K. (2016). Street-level discretion and organizational effectiveness in probation services. Federal Probation, 39(2), 39–80.

    Google Scholar 

Legislation index

International

  • The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners adopted by UN in 1955.

  • Council of Europe Recommendation R (82)16 on prison leave.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Sociology and Social Work, University of Bucharest, București, Romania

    Ioan Durnescu

  2. Babes Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

    Sorina Poledna

Authors
  1. Ioan Durnescu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sorina Poledna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ioan Durnescu.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Durnescu, I., Poledna, S. Prison Leave in Romania and the Power of Street Level Bureaucrats. Eur J Crim Policy Res 26, 231–246 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-020-09442-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-020-09442-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation