PRISONS IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN:
WHAT TO DO, WHAT NOT TO DO
Elı
as Carranza

M adam Tomoko Akane,Director,United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of
Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI);
Dear friends from so many countries of Asia and the Far East in attendance at this regional course:
I feel very much honoured and appreciative for this invitation that UNAFEI has extended to me toparticipate in the organisation of the workshop that shall be held on the occasion of the forthcoming
Thirteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice to be held in Doha,
Qatar in 2015, as well as to deliver to you this lecture on the prison situation and outlook in the
countries of Latin America and the Caribbean.
M any years after the establishment of the democracies that prevail in the countries of Latin
America and the Caribbean and even being free as they became from military governments, there
continue to be massacres, and massive violations of human rights at the very core of criminal justicesystems, whose main function is, paradoxically, to do justice.
The situation of criminal justice and particularly that of prisons, with some exceptions, is serious
at this time throughout the world,but it is notably worse in the middle and low-income countries suchas all those of Latin America and most of the Caribbean. This study describes and proposes actions
to correct the situation in the countries of these two regions. The officials of the criminal justicesystems of Asia and the Far East may assess to what extent this could be valid also for their region.
I must express my recognition and that of ILANUD to UNAFEI and the Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA), since, to a large extent, what I shall set forth in this presentation is theresult of a valuable inter-institutional co-operation programme that we maintain with both institutions.
Japanʼ
s co-operation with ILANUD and the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean has beenvery important and we are confident that we can continue strengthening it in the future.
It is important to analyse the prison situation as objectively and entirely as possible,and to foresee
its evolution throughout the forthcoming years, in order to be realistic with respect to what must be
done,what we can do,and also what we should not do. The analysis must not be limited to the prison
subsystem. It must comprise the entirety of the criminal justice system,since the prison subsystem isalmost at one end of it with little possibility to determine the nature and number ofindividuals that willenter into it.
In like manner,since the individuals who are overcrowding the prison systems are in them because
they are being accused of committing crimes,it will be important to take into account the evolution ofcrime.
In order for prisons to function reasonably well they must meet two requirements anywhere in theworld:to have room, and prison personnel. If there is not enough room there is overpopulation andovercrowding;and if there is not enough personnel there is anarchy and a vacuum for lack of authority
which is filled by emerging leadership and by the surfacing of self-defence groups. International rules
Director General,United Nations Latin American Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders,
Costa Rica.

192

157TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
and the doctrine require a multitude of other conditions for prisons to be in good working order, butthese two are indispensable and appropriate compliance with the other requirements depends on thesetwo.
The following table shows that up to the year 2013 prison systems of the countries of Latin America
were overpopulated, and that all of them, with only one single exception, suffered from critical
overcrowding (a density of 120 per cent or more). For its part,the second table shows that most of theprison systems of the countries of the Caribbean were in a similar situation.
PRISON OVERCROWDING IN COUNTRIESOF LATIN AMERICA 2013
COUNTRYSYSTEMCAPACITY

CURRENTPOPULATIONDENSITY
PER 100
PLACESEl Salvador

8,090

27,019334

Venezuela

16,53952,933320

Bolivia

5,436

14,272263

Peru

29,043

61,390211

Nicaragua

4,399

9,113

207

Guatemala

6,492

12,303190

Dominican Republic

12,207

21,688178

Ecuador

12,17021,122

174

Panama8,033

13,720171

Brazil

305,841

512,285

168

Colombia

75,726

114,872

152

Honduras

8,340

12,307148

Chile

36,74053,602146

Costa Rica

9,803

13,057133

M exico195,278

242,754

124

Uruguay

7,302

9,067

124

Paraguay

5,863

7,161

122

Argentina

58,211

58,810101

Elıas Carranza, ILANUD. Prepared with data provided by the authorities of each country.
Data from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Guatemala, Paraguay, the Dominican Republic, andUruguay are for 2011. Data from Bolivia are for 2006.

193

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 94

PRISON OVERCROWDING IN THE CARIBBEAN. 2014 OR CLOSEST YEARCOUNTRYHaiti

SYSTEMCAPACITY

EXISTING
POPULATIONDENSITY PER
100 PLACES

2,383

9,921

416

Antigua and Barbuda

150

361

247

Grenada

198

456

230

St. Kitts and Nevis

164

330

201

M artinique (France)

569

953

168

Anguilla (U.K.)

53

76

143

Guadeloupe (France)

634

887

140

Trinidad and Tobago

4,090

4,846

119

St. Lucia

500

587

117

Cayman Islands (U.K.)

179

185

108

St. M aarten (Netherlands)

135

180

104

1,348

1,433

98

120

119

98

4,402

4,201

95

310

240

89

Puerto Rico

15,034

12,24488

Barbados

1,250

1,507

84

Dominica

300

251

84

St. Vincent and The
Grenadines

488

460

84

Curaçao (Netherlands)

710

438

62

BahamasVirgin Islands (U.K.)
Jamaica
Aruba (Netherlands)

Source: Prepared on the basis of data from the International Centre for Prison Studies,Kingʼs
College, London.

In addition to the fact that prison overcrowding is in itself a form of cruel,inhuman and degrading
imprisonment as expressed by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, it generates anothertype of violence and degradation inside prisons. To be sentenced to prison under the current conditions
is, in most cases, to be literally sentenced to death. It is to be sentenced to prison with the accessory
sentence of possible assassination.
The phenomenon of overcrowding occurs because of an accelerated growth in confinement rates,with the consequent increase in the number of inmates that overflow the lodging capacity. In thefollowing table we see the evolution of prison rates for the countries of Latin America during the past
twenty years (1992-2013). Rates rose in all the countries,exorbitantly in most cases,twofold,threefold,
and in some cases nearing fourfold. The situation is most serious,and similar throughout the region.

194

157TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS

LATIN AMERICA:PRISON RATES PER 100,000 INHABITANTS
This includes federal and state systems and in some cases individuals being held in police precincts
COUNTRYArg

92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

10 11 12 1363 64 68 74 97 96 99 106 118 126 141 157 163 164 152 149 152 163 161

Bol

79

85 101 109

80 86 85

107

130

Bra

74 80 81 107

Col

92 96 97 98 120 129 128 139 157 170 157 178 199 207 179 174 188 158 169 193 227 232CR

104 105 109 121 133 160 162 169 168 183 187 190 196 196 191 186 189 191 211 238 264 313

Chi

154 153 148 153 161 170 179 203 215 216 221 228 226 228 259 290 318 312 320 311

Dom. Rep.

145 135 151 161 129 140 165 168

189 150 143 148 164 166 202 211 212

Ecu

74 81 81 85 95 81 79

77 87 91 107 128 118 112 114 107

El S

101 103 109 124 138 157 136 112 130 158 177 180 188 186 184 226 258 283 315 322 339 347

Gua

119

96

62

131 133 132 133 169 182 193 211 219 226 238 247 253

70 65 63 69

75

143

101 101 96 87 84 83 88 71 78 84 91 98

Hon

110 113 139 160 166 153 160 178

183

170 159 148 148 149 152 154

Mex

101 104 97 101 108 116 127 142 152 163 170 177 185 196 200 200 202 208 203 203 213 214

Nic

78 78 91 98 111 106 132 143 128 124 131 112 116 117 111 121 120 103 111 134

151

Pan

176 215 221 229 269 282 292 294 293 320 341 361 360 359 356 342 275 298 347 378

404

Par

70 75 74 78 67 74 85 92 107 109 105 99 100 96 96 109

Per

77 80 83 88 96 100 105 108 108 104 104 108 116 123 136 149 153 155 160 181 208

Uru

96 99 100 99 101 106 120 122 129 148 170 203 215 213 198 212 231 246 258 267

Ven

101 112 106 97 85 104 104 103 98 76 96

149

153

176

E.Carranza,ILANUD 2013. Prepared with official prison and police data from the countries and from population dataof the Latin American and Caribbean Demographic Centre (CELADE)-Population Division of ECLAC, Population
Estimates and Projections, 2008. The rates for Bolivia (2011), Peru (2011)and Venezuela (2010)were taken from ICPS,Kingʼs College.

In turn the table below shows the similar situation of high prison rates for the countries of the
Caribbean,although the rising trend is not as defined as with the Latin American group since theyhave
very small populations where the admission of inmates into, or their release from, the system causes
sharp variations and changes in trends.

195

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 94
THE CARIBBEAN: PRISON RATES PER 100.000 INHABITANTS
Anguilla (UK)2004 (315), 2007 (400), 2010 (387), 2011 (480)

Antigua & Barbuda

1995 (341), 1998 (278), 2005 (269, 2008 (262), 2010 (330)Bahamas1998 (478), 2002 (410), 2005 (460), 2008 (415), 2010 (382)

Barbados

1993 (238), 1998 (291), 2002 (317), 2005 (367), 2007 (408), 2010 (354)

Belize1992 (310),1995 (293),1998 (448),2001 (384),2003 (420),2006 (516),2010 (446),2011 (447),
2012 (452), 2013 (486)

Cayman Islands (UK) 1995 (546), 1998 (682), 2001 (539), 2004 (425), 2007 (409), 2010 (385)Dominica1992 (387), 1995 (392), 1998 (421), 2004 (418), 2007 (367), 2010 (431)Grenada1998 (352), 2002 (333), 2005 (265), 2008 (427), 2010 (423)

Jamaica

1992 (178), 1995 (171), 1998 (162), 2003 (176), 2006 (183), 2007 (174)

Puerto Rico (USA)

1992 (314), 1995 (310), 1998 (388), 2001 (377), 2004 (369), 2007 (330), 2008 (303)

St. Kitts & Nevis

1995 (295),1998 (288),2001 (441),2004 (559),2007 (452),2010 (529),2011 (603),2012 (685),
2013 (670)

St. Lucia

1992 (210), 1995 (263), 1998 (216), 2001 (296), 2004 (294), 2008 (304), 2010 (323)

St. Vincent &Grenadines

1992 (294), 1995 (323), 1998 (390), 2001 (280), 2004 (337), 2007 (350), 2010 (379)

Trinidad-Tobago

1992 (269), 1995 (299), 1998 (353), 2001 (370), 2004 (302), 2007 (276), 2010 (276)

Source: Prepared on the basis of data from the International Centre for Prison Studies, Kingʼs College, London.

The phenomenon is even more shocking when we find that it repeats itselfnot onlyin Latin America
and the Caribbean, but in all regions of the world at the same time; in medium and low-income
countries such as ours, as well as in high-income countries. It would be appropriate to point out that
according to assessments by the World Bank and ECLAC there are no high-income countries in Latin
America;all are middle-income countries, except for Nicaragua and Haiti, which are classified as
low-income countries.
Let us look at prison growth in the countries of Europe. All countries included in the table below
are high-income countries:

196

157TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
INCREASE IN THE USE OF PRISON IN THE COUNTRIES OF WESTERN EUROPE
Total ofinmates and1995 rates

Total ofinmates and2000 rates

Total ofinmates and2005 rates

Variation inprisonpopulation
1995-2005

AUSTRIA

6.180 (77)6.896 (86)8.883 (108)＋ 43,7%BELGIUM

7.561 (75)

8.671 (85)9.375 (90)

＋ 24,0%DENM ARK

3.438 (66)3.279 (61)4.198 (77)

＋ 22,1%FINLAND

3.018 (59)2.703 (52)3.954 (75)

＋ 31,0%FRANCE

51.623 (89)44.618 (77)52.908 (88)

＋ 2,5%GERMANY

66.146 (81)78.707 (96)80.413 (97)

＋ 21,6%GREECE

5.887 (56)8.038 (74)8.760 (82)

＋ 48,8%HOLLAND

10.249 (66)

13.847 (87)20.747 (127)＋102,4%HUNGARY

12.703 (124)15.110 (148)16.543 (164)＋ 30,2%IRELAND

2.054 (57)2.887 (75)3.417 (85)

＋ 66,4%ITALY

49.642 (87)53.481 (94)56.530 (97)

＋ 13,9%LUXEM BURG

469 (114)

394 (90)653 (143)＋ 39,2%

M ACEDONIA

1.132 (58)1.394 (69)2.256 (111)＋ 99,3%

M ALTA

196 (53)257 (65)298 (74)＋ 52,0%NORWAY

2.398 (55)2.643 (59)3.167 (68)

＋ 32,1%POLAND62.719 (163)56.765 (147)80.368 (211)＋ 28,1%PORTUGAL

12.343 (124)

13.106 (128)12.929 (122)＋ 4,7%

SPAIN

40.157 (102)45.044 (112)61.246 (142)＋ 52,5%

SWEDEN

5.767 (65)5.678 (64)7.054 (78)

＋ 22,3%

SWITZERLAND

5.655 (80)

6.390 (89)6.111 (83)

＋ 8,1%

U.K.. ENG. WALES

50.962 (99)64.602 (124)76.190 (143)＋ 49,5%

U.K. SCOTLAND

5.657 (111)5.855 (116)

6.794 (134)＋ 20,1%

E. Carranza, ILANUD. Prepared on the basis of Roy Walmsley, ʻInternational key issues in crime prevention andcriminal justiceʼHEUNI Publication Series No. 50, pages 161-167 (2006).

At first sight the phenomenon of the increase in the use of imprisonment in Europe is very similar
to the same phenomenon in Latin America and the Caribbean,except that it is not as accelerated.But
let us see another interesting table with the figures and percentages of foreign inmates in the same
countries.

197

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 94
FOREIGNERS IM PRISONED IN THE COUNTRIES OF EUROPE, 2005
COUNTRYNUMBER% OVER THE TOTAL OF
INMATESLUXEM BURG

495

71,4

CYPRUS

241

45,6

AUSTRIA

3.979

45,4

GREECE

3.990

41,6

BELGIUM

3.860

41,2

HOLLAND

5.818

32,9

ITALY

19.65633,0

M ALTA

91

30,5

SPAIN

18.43630,1

GERM ANY

22.09528,0

SWEDEN

1.475

20,9

FRANCE

11.82020,5

PORTUGAL

2.386

18,5

DENM ARK

754

18,2

ENGLAND AND WALES

9.650

12,7

IRELAND

3.080

9,0

CZECH REPUBLIC

1.652

8,7

FINLAND

286

7,5

HUNGARY

631

3,8

SCOTLAND71

1,0

POLAND

750

0,9

Prepared on the basis of “Foreigners in European Prisons”by Anton van Kalmthout, Femke
Hofstee-van der Meulen and Frieder Dunkel (eds.), Chapter 1, Table 1,Wolf Legal Publishers,
2007.
Inmates includes the total number of inmates sentenced, those in preventive imprisonment,
and those in administrative detention (rejected applicants for asylum, and irregular migrants
awaiting deportation).

The high number of foreigners in prison in the countries of Europe,the United States of America,and Canada is incredible. In the middle-income countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia,
Africa, and Eastern Europe prison rates rise at an accelerated pace;members of our excluded andlow-class population groups who commit many crimes in the category that Luigi Ferrajoli has labelledsubsistence crime are being disproportionately imprisoned.
In the high-income countries of Europe and North America imprisonment rates rise also at anaccelerated pace; neglected and low-class individuals are being disproportionately imprisoned, butcharacteristically a large number of them are also Latin American and Caribbean,Asian,African andEastern European who migrate in the most risky ways in search for work, many just to end up in
prison;and others, many of them, thousands, to end up drowned in the oceans, asphyxiated in containers, or simply dead in the deserts along the border between the United States of America and198

157TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
M exico. A short time ago,in October 2013,the world was shocked by the case of 500 African migrants
who drowned on their way to Italy when the barge on which they were being transported sank off thecoast of Lampedusa.
The puzzle starts to come together as you gather information on the many regions of the world,and
it is startling to see more clearly what it is that is actually occurring.
The crime situation, the increasing dissemination and multiplication of information with respect
thereto by the media,and the consequent state of alarm on the part of society about the increasing useof criminal justice and imprisonment in all regions of the world simultaneously could hardly be acoincidence. This is a global phenomenon of globalisation which originates in variables common to thedifferent countries, that act concurrently with other specific variables in each region or country.
Joseph Stiglitz, whom we mentioned before, named one of his books Globalization and its Discontents.In it he describes several problems or discontents that originate in the manner in which globalisation is “managed”by the countries and international organisations that have the power to decide or
steer the worldʼ
s economy, which could and should be managed differently, with more equitablenessand social justice in the exchange. And the title of Stiglitzʼ
s latest book is The 1% Has What the 9 9 %Needs, which is self-explanatory. In dealing with this subject I often think about the words of Jose
Figueres,the founder of social democracy in Costa Rica,at a lecture at Stanford University referringto the high-income countries and to our trade with them. Figueres said: “No,please,donʼt help us;justpay a fair price for our beans.”
One of the discontents to which Stiglitz refers―possibly the most important one―is the role of thefinancial economy and its effects which increases income distribution inequality among countries―between those of high income and the rest of the world―and inside the countries, in which the gap
between the few who hoard much and the many who have very little becomes wider year by year.
One especially serious prison problem is that of unsentenced inmates,of persons who are in prison
for long periods of time pending trial.We did our initial research on this subject 35 years ago,in 1980,
at which time we found the interesting situation for our region that can be observed in the following
graph:
GRAPH 1:COUNTRIES OF LATIN AM ERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN,
UNSENTENCED INM ATES IN ONE AND ANOTHER GROUP
OF COUNTRIES, YEAR 1981199

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 94
In the small countries of the Caribbean under the Anglo Saxon model the percentages for unsentenced inmates were distributed in a range from some 2.18% in the Cayman Islands to some 37.44% as a
maximum in Guyana.
For their part, and in contrast, the figures for our Latin American countries under a continental
European or Romanic-Germanic criminal system, ranged from 47.40% in Costa Rica to 94.25% in
Paraguay.
The gap between the country of the Caribbean under the Anglo Saxon criminal procedural systemin the worst situation, with the highest number of unsentenced inmates, and the country of Latin
America under the continental European system in the best situation,that is,with the lowest percentage of unsentenced inmates, was of ten percentage points in favour of the Caribbean country.
The influence that the “
criminal procedural system”variable has on the determination of thenumber of unsentenced persons in one and the other group of countries was notorious.
Work began to be done in the nineties, and is ongoing, on the introduction of criminal procedural
reforms in all countries of the region, which replaced the inquisitorial process with the accusatory
process, thus establishing, among other things, the investigative stage conducted by the prosecutorialagency, the defence from the initial procedural action, orally instead of by written testimony, andreduction of secrecy in the investigation to a minimum. Such reforms had an effect on the number andpercentages of unsentenced inmates.
As we can see,with the passing of time and with reformed procedural systems the countries ofLatin
America have been making progress reducing their percentages of unsentenced inmates,and now thedifference in percentages between both groups of countries is not as defined as it was 30 or 35 years
ago.
GRAPH 2:COUNTRIES OF LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN.
UNSENTENCED INMATES IN ONE AND ANOTHER GROUP
OF COUNTRIES. 2013 OR CLOSEST YEAR

However, in parallel to such progress made by the Latin American group, the figures for thecountries of the Caribbean also indicate a certain reversal as compared to the excellent situation theyreflected at the beginning of the eighties. Most possibly this should be due to the same phenomenon
that is affecting the entire region of Latin America and the Caribbean and the world in general,which

200

157TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
has to do with the way in which globalisation has been “managed”―as explained by Joseph Stiglitz―with great income-distribution inequitableness between the high-income countries and the rest of theworld;also with great inequitableness inside the countries,which generates,in turn,inequitableness inthe distribution of crime and criminalisation, the latter being excessively high in the medium andlow-income countries―not only in those of Latin America―and multiplied by policies of“war”against
crime and zero tolerance, when what our countries would need is zero tolerance to social exclusion
instead.
The following table shows prison figures by sex. As we can see, the rates for women in the total
prison-population figures range from approximately 3 percent in the Dominican Republic,to 12 percent
in Bolivia;after a closer study of the figures we can see that for the most part they are related to drugtrafficking as they participate as “mules”in the chain of this type of crime.
PRISON POPULATION BY SEX IN COUNTRIES OF LATIN AMERICA, 2013, OR CLOSEST YEARCOUNTRY

MALES
number

FEM ALES%

numberTOTAL%

Argentina

56,198

95

2,719

5

58,917

Bolivia

12,519

88

1,753

12

14,272

Brazil477,32293

34,9637

512,285

Colombia

106,293

93

8,579

7

114,872

Costa Rica

14,267

93

1,048

7

15,315

Chile

48,777

91

4,825

9

53,602

Dominican Republic

20,68597583

321,268Ecuador

19,372

92

1,750

8

21,122

El Salvador

24,371

90

2,648

10

27,019

Guatemala13,915

92

1,246

8

15,161

Honduras

11,85196456

412,307

M exico231,11395

11,641

5

242,754

Nicaragua

8,667

95

446

5

9,113

Panama13,720

93

1,030

7

14,750Paraguay

8,441

93

632

7

9,073

Peru

57,971

94

3,419

6

61,390

Uruguay

8,353

93

668

7

9,021

Venezuela

49,591

94

3,342

6

52,933

E. Carranza, ILANUD. Prepared with official data provided by the Government of each country.

Because of the large percentage ofmen crowding the prisons,prison systems have traditionallybeen
among the most evident examples of deviance and lack of gender equitableness in State systems andin our societies in general. This has to a certain extent been corrected gradually over the past few
decades,but there is still much to be done. Specifically,on the prisons issue the United Nations General
Assembly approved the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial
Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules) in March 2011,and also created,within the United
Nations, an open working group to update the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners, approved in 1955;although they continue to be an important instrument in force, they are
outdated and not gender-focused.

201

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 94
Now, why do imprisonment rates rise?Two classical answers have been given to this question:a) Because there is more crime. This answer considers prison rates as crime indicators;b) Because there are policies that lead to a greater use of criminal justice and imprisonment. Thisanswer is the result of research that verifies that there is not necessarily a correlation between
the rise in prison rates and crime rates,there being many cases that have been observed where
the prison population rises in parallel to flat or even decreasing crime rates (Aebi 2003).
In the case of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean ILANUD has found that bothfactors have an effect on the rise of imprisonment rates and that both provide feedback to each other.
Crime rates are very high, and increasingly more severe criminal policies prevail.
The Latin America and Caribbean region holds two shameful world championships. In the realmof crime the region shows the highest homicide with intent rates in the world (UNODC 2011 and 2013),
and with respect to per capita income it also shows the highest distribution inequality rates among all
regions of the world (there is more poverty but less inequality in Africa)(UNDP 2011, ECLAC 2011).
Criminological research shows that there is a high direct correlation between income distribution
inequality and the rates for homicide with intent and certain crimes against property (FAJNZILVER
et al. 2002;Carranza E. et al., 2007).
Let us see the following table which shows the correlation between the Gini coefficient thatmeasures income distribution inequality,and homicide rates for 138 countries ofthe world. The highest
Gini scores (the cases of the greatest inequality), as well as the highest homicide rates correspond tothe countries of Latin America and the Caribbean.
Graph 3:Income inequality and homicide in 138 countries, 2008

The variables or factors involved in the commission of crimes are frequently of multiple types:
psychological,educational,family,social,gender,demographic (particularly those related to different
age groups),occasional or circumstantial,cultural,economic,etcetera.This is why it is often said thatcrime is a multifaceted phenomenon.

202157TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
But among so many factors that intervene, the effect of income distribution inequality is crucial,since it is related not only to crime rates,but to all or almost all other social variables,many of which
contribute, in turn, to an increase in crime and prison overcrowding. UNESCO and UNICEF tell usthat the higher income distribution inequality is, the worse education is; the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) tell us that the higher income
distribution inequality is, the worse health is;HABITAT tells us that the higher income distribution
inequality is,the worse the housing and urban settlements situation is; the International Organisation
for Migration (IOM )tells us that the higher income distribution inequality is,the higher the figures for
migration towards the countries and regions that offer adequate work and living conditions; theInternational Labour Organisation (ILO)tells us that the higher income distribution inequality is,theworse the situation is in terms of labour relations, where we find more unemployment and informal
work;and for its part the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)and ILANUD reportthat the higher income distribution inequality is―both among as well as within the countries―thehigher the rates for homicide and crimes against property are.
And the variables cited and others act not in an isolated but in a linked manner;they exchange amutual feedback and produce a fatal crime and violence cocktail that is also a very fertile breeding
ground for the development of other non-conventional forms of trans-national organised crime, trafficking in persons,migrants,drugs,and weapons,the proliferation of weapons,money laundering andother forms of economic crimes. To a greater or a lesser extent, all countries of Latin America andthe Caribbean have had and are having a painful experience in this domain.
The need to reduce income distribution inequality was stressed by UNDP (2010)and ECLAC (2011);
they devoted annual publications exclusively to this phenomenon. The following graph shows in acomparison between regions the incredible income distribution inequality that prevails in Latin
America. As can be observed,not one country in Latin America had,up to the time when the data werereleased, an income distribution that would be at least equal to that of one of the countries with themost inequitable distribution among the high-income countries(Portugal,followed bythe United Statesof America). The country with the lowest inequality in the Latin America group―Uruguay―appearson the graph four points behind Portugal.
Regions of the world. Gini index of per capita household income203

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 94
It is appropriate to add that the latest reports by the Economic Commission for Latin America andthe Caribbean (ECLAC)are positive and optimistic with respect to the countries of the region. They
explain that as of the year 2002 there has been a notorious decrease in poverty mostly due to thenoticeable reduction of poverty recorded in Brazil, and because by comparing recent results to thoserecorded for 2002 we can notice distributional improvements in most of the countries. It would appear,
therefore, that the region is correcting its course and going the right way,although,regardless of thepolicies implemented, the region continues to hold the shameful world championship in terms ofinequality and, consequently, also in greater violence as measured by homicide rates.
In sum, the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean have a hard task ahead but in general
their economic and social policies are aimed in the right direction, and they should persevere anddevelop such policies further.
Taking into account the magnitude and trends of the rates relative to crime and persons in prisonin the countries of the region,we cannot be excessively optimistic and bet on a reversal of the figuresin the short or medium term ahead. Even if they were reversed―and there are countries that are
making enormous efforts and obtaining interesting results―several years will still be required to reachreasonable levels. It is important to keep this in mind so as not to become discouraged and continue
to respond to crime and to social alarm with more of the same:more preventive prisons, toughest
punishment,higher numbers of persons in prison,participation of armed forces in the criminal justicesystems, and multiplication of violence.
It is important to keep this in mind to project strategies that will require sustainability in time,and
which should not be exclusively relevant to the prison situation but comprehensive, and that should
include actions by other components of the criminal justice system, as well as social and economic
policies specifically aimed at reducing income distribution inequality and at the attainment of thebenefits that this would generate in terms of labour, education, housing, health, and in terms of areduction of both, violence, and crime.
But this is,necessarily,a medium and long-term strategy. What do we do in the meantime with ourovercrowded prisons?What shall we do with the prisoners that the other components of the criminal
justice system,the police and the prosecution,continue to send to prisons where there is no more room?
What to do with violence, death, and constant human rights violations committed in prisons for lackof room? These questions hurt us as human beings,as political beings,and as civil servants if we thinkthat all those people are swarmed in such violent and unhealthy places under our responsibility.
Given the seriousness of the situation we would have to plan two strategies:a long-term one toreconstruct the prison system and re-establish it in accordance with the United Nations rights andobligations prison model;and another strategy to deal with the emergency on a daily basis. Both plans
and their activities should start immediately, be sustainable in time, and provide for activities in the
short, medium, and long terms.
The transformation will necessarily take time. It is for this reason that we must start today, andthat all measures, whether short, medium, or long-term, should start to be implemented today.
Otherwise we have to spend our time putting out fires that are bigger and bigger,and contributing to
the deterioration of the system whose transformation becomes more and more difficult.
To a certain extent we will have to do emergency work since it is necessary to put out the fires,but
we cannot permit this to distract us from the great transforming task which must have continuity.
How,then,can we make compatible with each other the two tasks that we must perform with reduced
human and material resources?
The experience accrued by ILANUD over the years has gradually convinced us of the need for amethodology that we shall try to explain.
M any countries of the region developed valuable prison experiences at different times that wewould not be able to summarise here;but we will specify a number of characteristics of the Latin

204

157TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
American reforms that were successful,comprehensive,and lasting in time. For this purpose we willcite the examples of Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic.
We feel it is useful to exemplify countries from our own region since, despite their individual
uniqueness they also share many similar traits, middle incomes,the same language,a similar generalculture, similar crime situations, and similar problems. If Costa Rica did it when it did, and theDominican Republic is doing it now,other countries of the region could do it as well;and possibly also
other middle and low-income countries in other regions of the world could do it. The latter issomething that you could assess having more information and knowledge than I have about yourcountries.
1) The reforms started with political decisions at the highest governmental level:the office of the
President of the Republic directly assisted by the Ministry of Justice in the case of Costa Rica,and theProsecutorial Agency of the Republic in the case of the Dominican Republic. This was an essential
requirement to bring about the reforms.
2) The key officials were very well chosen for their natural aptitude,preparation,knowledge of thesubject matter, and full-time dedication to their functions. Thus were the director general of thesystem,the head of the prison training school and the directors ofeach prison selected. Save from somerare exceptions,in Latin America in general these officials do not arrive at such positions having had
prison training, and ILANUD has found cases of great instability, with directors general and otherofficials being replaced on average every six months. This makes it impossible for the reform projects
to have the necessary continuity.
3) M ethodology is very important. In the case of the Dominican Republic two parallel systems
were created:the “new”one that started out with one prison but that now has eighteen and is growing
with the opening of new or refurbished units entrusted exclusively to the new officials that join thesystem after eight months of training;and the “old”system that still has 19 prisons but that graduallydisappears as the new system evolves.
The method consists of ensuring that both systems function totally separated from each other.
Neither the staff nor the facilities can be shared,and only teams of new officials selected,trained andprepared at the Prison Training School work in the new system prisons. If it is done differently boththe situation and old practices shall prevail and we can obtain only more of the same.
3.1. It is very important to be strategic at the prison or prisons selected to start,which will enable
us to have political success in order to be able to continue. (We suggest that this be done with not morethan two prisons initially).
4) There was uninterrupted continuity in the reform programme. It is indispensable for the reform
to go beyond terms in office of the administration, and that it have a duration equal to at least two
administrative periods in order to consolidate itself, that is eight or ten years as a minimum1.
5) The professional area of prison studies was created,together with social security and retirement
benefits associated with it.2 All leading officials of the change have maintained their stability from thestart of the process. In most of the countries we donʼt have a truly professional prison career, andofficial appointments lack stability.
6) Prison functions are of a civilian,not of a military or police nature. The nature and objectivesof the military function,as well as of the police function are not those of the prison function. Each ofthese three professions requires a specific selection,preparation and training of its officials. Excellent
military officers or excellent police officers are not excellent prison officials.
1

In the Dominican Republic the process started in July 2003. A new administration took office in August 2004;it wasreelected for the 2008-2012 term, and again for the 2012-2016 term.
2
In Costa Rica technical and professional personnel are protected by the Civil Service system, and prison police by theGeneral Police Act, and the General Police Regulations.

205

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 94
The Dominicans were categorical with respect to this requirement. It was established in the rulesthat police or military officers whether active or retired were not allowed to be members of the prison
system.
7) A training school was created that selects and trains without exception all personnel admitted,
and that continuously provides in-service training. All personnel are properly prepared here,and know
and respect the institution for which they work. In addition to the initial training, all personnel,
including cooks, drivers, etcetera, receive, as a minimum, a week of in-service training every year.
8) An important initial investment was made on the following: i) well-paid personnel at an
adequate staff/inmate ratio; ii) facilities; neither a prison, nor a hospital, a school or any otherinstitution can work adequately while the facilities are overcrowded;and iii)an annual budget for theappropriate performance of the system including salaries, food, health, education, etcetera.
9) Regular yearly investments continued to be made.Noncompliance with this requirement was oneof the main reasons that caused the crisis of the Costa Rican system. However,since the system had
been at a very good level its situation is still comparatively better than the regional average,and theGovernment intends to recover it.
Investing regularly is indispensable to maintain the level and push the reform forward. Ifthe systemcrashes the cost of getting it back on its feet is very high,and there would be a loss of trust on the partof staff members and inmates who would then conclude that it was merely one more promise bypoliticians in the news,and that nobody was going to place her or his life on the line for it by opposing
powerful and violent interests that would be affected by the reform;
9.1. As to investment in personnel, it is indispensable to establish an adequate inmate/staff ratio.
The inmate/staff ratio of the new system of the Dominican Republic is 3.5. Although the number ofstaff members may seem excessive, it is not. Because of their nature prison systems require a large
number of staffmembers iftheyare to operate adequately. Human beings need human interactions andeven more so if they are confined and kept from socialising naturally in the community.
In the tables below we show the number of inmates per prison security staff members in the
countries of Latin America and Western Europe. These staff members stay in the prisons day andnight, and are those who are in greater and permanent contact with the inmates, for which reason
selecting them adequately and training them comprehensively,not only in matters of security,is very
important. It is for this reason that in some countries they are no longer regarded as “security or
surveillance personnel;”for example in the Dominican Republic, where this task was entrusted to its
new team of“PSTs”(prison surveillance and treatment officers―“
VTPs”in Spanish―who are trained
integrally).
For its part the administrative and technical staff (physicians, psychologists, lawyers, social
workers, teachers, etc.)is smaller than the security staff and,in general,their presence in the prisons
is not permanent.
As can be observed in the tables below, save for some exceptions, the inmate/staff ratios are
generally very inconvenient in the countries of Latin America. In a previous study(Carranza E.et al.,2001:24 and fol.)we explained that in analysing the tables it is necessary to take into consideration thatthe optimum estimated ratio is of between one and not more than three inmates per security staff
member on average. Although this may seem high, it is the numerical ratio that prevails in the
countries of Western Europe and in some special prisons of Latin America such as, for example, theAlmoloya de Juarez prison of the Federal Prison System of M exico,and in those of the Federal Prison
System of Argentina. This ratio is necessary in order to ensure that in practice there may be between
four and not more than twelve inmates per staff member in effective compliance with her or his duties.
In reality it is estimated that because of the necessary personnel shifts half of the security staff is athome and the other half at the prison facilities,and that 50% of this latter half is on active duty while
the other 50% is getting ready for replacement, resting, sleeping or eating, whereby, if in a given
country the ratio maintained by the existing staff is 2:1 in terms of actual service the ratio is 8:1.

206

157TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERSPRISON SYSTEMS OF WESTERN EUROPE, INMATE/STAFF RATIO UP TOSEPTEM BER 1, 2009
COUNTRY

Total inmates

Total security staff

Number ofinmates per security
staff member

San M arino

2

6

0.3

Liechtenstein

7

15

0.5

Monaco

23

32

0.7

Northern Ireland

1,456

1,478

1.0

Ireland

3,919

2,960

1.3

Denmark

3,721

2,615

1.4

Italy

63,981

41,512

1.5

Norway

3,285

2,199

1.5

Sweden

7,147

4,351

1.6

Belgium

10,9016,317

1.7

Finland

3,589

1,661

2.2

Luxemburg

679

292

2.3

Netherlands

16,284

6,777

2.4

494

199

2.5

United Kingdom andWales

83,45433,848

2.5

Germany

73,26327,016

2.7

Portugal

11,0994,148

2.7

France66,30723,0882.9

Spain (Catalonia)

10,3563,192

3.2

Spain (State)

67,986

15,652

4.3

Malta

Source: E. Carranza: Prepared on the basis of Council of Europe/SPACE20 data.

This indicates that the true inmate/staff ratio is obtained by multiplying by four the inmate/security staff figures shown on the last column of the table below. The ratio thus obtained for thecountries of Latin America is very inadequate, with an excessively high number of inmates per staff
member―in general living together in barns or large collective barracks―whereby in real life neither
the prison authority,nor each inmate has immediate control over the actions and lives of inmates but
depends, instead, on living, survival or self-defence groups that are necessarily formed inside prisonswith a toll of violence and frequent deaths.

207

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 94

PRISON SYSTEMS OF LATIN AM ERICA
INM ATE/STAFF RATIO
2013 OR CLOSEST YEARNUMBEROF
INM ATESNUMBEROF STAFF
MEMBERSINM ATESPER STAFF
MEMBER

Panama14,750630

23.4

El Salvador

27,019

1,386

19.5

Peru

61,390

4,065

15.1

Ecuador21,122

1,529

13.8

Colombia

114,872

11,206

10.3

Venezuela

19,257

1,900

10.1

Bolivia

14,272

1,525

9.4

Paraguay 2011

7,161

801

8.9

Nicaragua

9,168

1,036

8.8

Honduras

12,3071,573

7.8

Brazil 2011

512,285

69,843

7.3

Dominican Republic

4,527

733

6.2

Uruguay 2011

9,015

1,579

5.7

Costa Rica

15,3152,813

5.4

Chile 2011

53,602

11,347

4.7

Guatemala15,161

3,440

4.4

Argentina 2011

59,22732,412

1.8

COUNTRY

E. Carranza ILANUD. Prepared with official data from each country.

10)The prison reform did not focus exclusively on the problem of overcrowding,nor was it limited
to the construction of one or several private maximum-security and high-cost megaprisons. Its
objective was the system as a whole,and the establishment of dignity and quality for all inmates in all
prisons, in observance of the principle that criminal justice must be the same for all.
11)Criminal justice is primarily a State function,and prisons are the places where prison sentences
are carried out. The two countries we are using as examples established State prison systems and usedpublic resources in a very prudent and intelligent manner.
In both cases private enterprises have been participating with the system in business transactions,such as construction of public works (prisons, other facilities, roads, etc.), and in purchase and saleactivities involving furniture, security items, food, etc., but not replacing the State in the applicationof punishment such as the so-called private or franchised prisons do. This subject is very important.
Several arguments explain why prison systems must not be privatised or franchised; there arearguments from the ethical point of view, from the criminal policy point of view, and from theeconomic point of view. Because of time limitations I shall refer to them briefly.
The introduction of a private prison into a prison system that has many overcrowded prisons andserious material and personnel deficits as in the case of Latin America and the Caribbean, and of
middle and low-income countries of other regions of the world,increases the deterioration of the other208

157TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
prisons of the country,in addition to the fact that it creates a situation of privilege for a small groupat a very high financial cost. We will illustrate this with a model example:
One year ago countries “X”and “Y”built their newest prisons. Country “X”built a State prison;country “Y”built a private prison. Both countries have 10 prisons each with a capacity for 1,000
inmates per prison,and a total capacity of 10,000 inmates,but both have 15,000 persons in prison,whichmeans that both operate at 150% of their capacity. Country“X”has 10 State prisons; country“Y”has
9 State prisons and one private prison. Let us see their situation on the following table:
EFFECT OF PRIVATE PRISONS ON PRISON OVERCROWDING IN THE
COUNTRIES OF LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
COUNTRY X WITH A CAPACITY FOR 10,000 BUT WITH 15,000 INM ATES
10 PRISONS WITH 1,000 PLACES EACH

NUMBER OF INMATES FOR EACH PRISON

0 private prisons

0

10 State prisons

1,500 inmates in each prison

COUNTRY Y WITH A CAPACITY FOR 10,000 AND ALSO WITH 15,000 INMATES
10 PRISONS WITH 1,000 PLACES EACH

NUMBER OF INMATES FOR EACH PRISON

1 private prison

1,000

9 State prisons

1,555 inmates in each State prison

As we can see,in country“X”the limited prison resources can be equitably distributed with better
results. In opposition to this,in country“Y”overpopulation is progressively accumulated at the Stateprisons,while an unfair and probably unconstitutional distinction is established between those who are
doing time in them and the few who are sent at a very high price to the private prison.
And in countries whose prison population grows at a high rate,such as in the case of those of Latin
America and the Caribbean,overcrowding grows gradually in time causing those held in State prisons
to be increasingly cramped together and making it impossible to alleviate the situation by distributing
the excess of inmates among all the prisons of the country.
By definition, private enterprise does business for profit. And if the imposition of punishment
becomes a business the criteria that govern the application of punishment (criminal law, criminal
policy,ethics,even public opinion)shall be replaced by market results and the incentive of profit,and
consequently selling and purchasing prison places shall raise prison rates even more. The countries
which have been in the business of privatisation and franchising of prisons,and of more private prisonsalso show, comparatively, the highest inmate rates.
In contrast with this the countries of Northern Europe, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, andalso Canada and Japan,which have the prison systems with the most reasonable rates and the highest
record of observance of human rights as well,all have State prison systems.Worthy of mention is thefact that Japan introduced recently a private prison, and that Canada did the same in the State ofOntario,a facility that entered into operation in 2001;however,the bad results obtained with this latter
experience caused the government to take charge of the prison in 2006 and not renew the contract. A
similar case was reported in New Zealand.
Another important factor to be taken into consideration is cost. ILANUD analysed the costs for
those countries of Latin America that introduced private prisons, and in all cases the comparison toState prison costs rendered very negative results. Using Costa Rica as an example,the cost ratio wasof 9 United States dollars per day per capita in State prisons,versus 37 dollars for the private prison

209

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 94
that was proposed. The country made the right decision by resolving not to install it. ILANUD foundsimilar figures for all the countries studied.
12)Both the Dominican Republic and Costa Rica established in their prisons excellent productive
programmes, programmes of education at the three standard levels, and of labour training.
In the New Prison M anagement Model of the Dominican Republic there is zero leisure in prison. All
inmates study, receive training, and work. Inmates who are illiterate at the time of admission know
how to read and write three months later.The elimination of leisure is very effective also in terms of
security.
13)NGOs,churches,the media,and the societyin general participated substantiallyin the implementation of the reform. In the Dominican Republic a national sponsoring board was created by these
entities, while a specific sponsoring board was created for each prison unit. The result was a broadconsensus, transparency, and social support, which are so important in this domain.
Thus far we have seen essential elements that were required for the construction of the newcomprehensive prison systems of Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic.We have seen a methodologyof successive steps with two parallel systems,something advisable for countries that have many prison
units. We have seen also that with limited human and material resources the construction of the new
system will take much time. Now,then,in the meantime what can we do with our current voluminousand overcrowded systems that do not meet the two requirements of space and personnel? This question
brings us to the “management of the emergency”issue.
We said that the situational analysis cannot be limited to the prison system since the “production”
of inmates falls under the police,the prosecutorial agency,and the judges. Let us now add that a largepart of the solution will also have to be up to them.
In this twentieth century, corporal punishment is no longer prescribed by the legislation of Latin
America and the Caribbean. Nor is there in the codes―although it does exist in reality―the punishment of “confinement in conditions of overcrowding, violence, and unhealthiness.” The very serious
situation of the regionʼs prisons is widely known and featured constantly in the media that report on
deaths that occur in them. Public officials who have knowledge of such conditions and yet order theconfinement of persons in those prisons should be liable in civil and in criminal court.
Generally prison directors have little authority to prevent the admission into prison of more persons
in excess of the established capacity. But they and the ministers in charge ofprisons can bring together
the heads of all agencies of the criminal justice system to analyse the situation and determine which
specific actions could be taken.There are positive experiences with this type of horizontal meeting foranalysing problems and deciding on consensual solutions,instead of each organisation working on its
own, and all blaming each other.
What else can the prison directorʼ
s departments do to cope with the emergencies inside the prisons
while the structural solutions are found?
a) Reduce the number of deaths.
The first right we have is the right to life,and then come all other rights. The main objective withrespect to overcrowded prisons with insufficient personnel and resources is to reduce the number ofdeaths and hopefully eliminate them completely. This requires reducing violence among inmates,and
between inmates and the staff.
Our main instrument for this purpose is the classification and distribution of the inmates into
groups. But in most cases we either do not have the technical personnel required to do the classification, or the space to lodge the classified persons. In an emergency condition we will have to forget
about sophisticated classifications and do the job exclusively for the purpose of reducing violence anddeath,based on two main criteria:i)not putting enemies together,and ii)forming groups subject to theinmatesʼcapacity for interpersonal relations.

210

157TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERSb) Adequate distribution of the staff.
A good classification will also enable us to distribute our small staff with better results, byassigning more officers to the units or pavilions where conflictive inmates shall be lodged;c) The right to health.
In an overcrowding situation health is in danger. Overcrowding is particularly serious if we speak
about infectious diseases. This problem deserves special attention. In general the countries that best
solve the problem of health in prisons are those that entrust it to the ministry of health.This has two
advantages:i)that is the specialised ministry,and ii)this contributes to the transparency of the system.
d) The rights to study and work.
In an overcrowded and insufficient resource setting it is difficult to enjoy these rights. However,
we must do everything possible to make them effective to the maximum extent possible:i) we must
train the inmates by taking advantage of their time in prison in order to reduce to a minimum theprobability of failure when they gain their freedom and return to the community, and ii) we mustcombat the deterioration and the violence that leisure produces in prison.
Lastly, and to conclude, let us talk about the dignity of human beings. Under any circumstances,even the worst ones, we have to ensure the prevalence of DIGNITY in the relationship with and thetreatment of those in prison and the prison staff. An attitude of respect on the part of a staff member
is anything but a sign of weakness or lack of authority;it strengthens her or him in the eyes of theinmate. The inmate realises immediately who is in charge and values her or his correct conduct,
however strict in compliance with the regulations, but displayed with dignity. Therefore, we canalways do something;even in the event that the prison system is not firmly supported by those in highoffice in the government, our attitude is very important to guarantee the existence of prison systems
that are compliant with United Nations rules and where human dignity is respected.
Thank you very much for being here and I will now welcome your questions or comments that you
may wish to make.

REFERENCES
AEBI M arcelo F., AROM AA Kauko and others, 2003
European Source Book Of Crime And Criminal Justice Statistics, 2003, Second Edition.
CARRANZA Elı
as and SOLANA Emilio, 2007
Seguridad frente al delito en Costa Rica. Magnitud y manifestaciones de la violencia delictiva en las
dos ultimas decadas. Prepared for the State of the Nation Programme. Costa Rica.
et al., 1989“
Sistema penal y derechos humanos en Costa Rica: muertes violentas en hechos de intervencion
policial; muertes violentas en el sistema penitenciario; muertes en accidentes de transito”, with H.
Issa and M . Leon ILANUD, EDUCA Press, San Jose.
et al., 1998
Delito y Seguridad de los Habitantes. Siglo XXI Press, Mexico.
ECLAC 2012
Panorama Social 2011.
FAJNZILVER Pablo et al., 2002
Inequality and Violent Crime. Journal of Law and Economics, vol. XLV, April.
UNDP 2011
Informe Regional sobre Desarrollo Humano para America Latina y el Caribe 2010. “Actuar sobre
el futuro: romper la transmision intergeneracional de la desigualdad”.

211

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 94
UNODC, 2011
Global Study on Homicide.
2013
Global Study on Homicide.

212