Overcrowding in Italian Jails. A Quantitative Analysis of Foreigners (Supraaglomerarea în închisorile italiene. O analiză cantitativă asupra străinilor)

Overcrowding in Italian Jails. A Quantitative Analysis of Foreigners

(Supraaglomerarea în închisorile italiene. O analiză cantitativă asupra străinilor)

 

Stefania GIRONE

Francesca De PALMA

 

 

     Abstract: Victims of prison-overcrowding in Italy are part of a structural and systemic problem which is still struggling to find plausible solutions. When natives and foreigners are separately considered, the overcrowding phenomenon assumes a perspective that goes beyond the mere Italian attribute and, therefore, better focalises on the ones who, having the status of foreigner,  are somehow in a weaker position in comparison with the native ones. As a matter of fact, the combination  foreign prisoner-overcrowding has allowed to address the prison issue in accordance with a more specific approach that compares the Italian native component and the foreign one. This highlights that the overcrowding phenomenon in Italy is not an aspect suffered mainly by foreign prisoners, but it is equally endured by most of the native ones. Additionally, this analysis takes into account, on the one hand, the most outstanding foreign nationalities housed in Italian prisons and, on the other hand, the Regions having the highest rates of overcrowding, foreign inmates, and prison capacities. The outcomes reveal that Moroccans, Romanians, Tunisians and Albanians are the ones at increased risk of prison overcrowding since, in fact, they represent 60.0% of the total foreign presence in the Italian jails. However, there is a sort of “equal overcrowding distress” that comes out of this context: actually, the four major foreign presences are housed at the same percentage by the six selected Regions (the most overcrowded by foreigners), circumstance that generates a kind of homogeneity of the unlivable conditions in prisons.

 

     Keywords: Italianprisons, inmates, overcrowding, migration.

 

 

            Europe calls on Italy to address prison overcrowding

           

     Prison population in Italy has had a sharp increase in recent years, phenomenon that can generally be attributed to the crisis of the welfare state and the corresponding – fair or unfair – criminal responses made in relation to security issues. Undoubtedly, in this circumstances, the weakest human categories are the ones that pay the utmost costs since they have to face greater difficulties in accessing rights and guarantees offered by the social system. Foreigners are fully-fledged placed in the above categories as, in fact, they are included by the UN in the category of people with special needs[1].

     Regardless the complications of making international comparisons (due to different legal systems and different statistical methods), there are some common traits found among the conditions of detainees in general and foreigners in particular. Specifically referring to foreigners, there are lots of problems related to the lack and/or the restraint of communication (mainly due to language obstacles), knowledge of legal rights, adequate legal assistance, Embassy or Consular support, health care and psychiatric care, employment and training opportunities (both inside and outside jails), know-how of management of foreigners by prison staff, family contacts and/or friendships outside the jail system, access to alternative measures to imprisonment, and so on.

     Nonetheless, scholars and politicians keep calling into question those causes and implications link to the sharp increase of foreigners in European prisons. Recent data[2] show that the foreign population in the EU prisons reached almost 120 thousand units, that is, about 20.0% of the total prisoners (over 631 thousand units made up of natives and foreigners). Taking into account the single member States, foreign inmates have – in percentage terms – a significant impact in Luxembourg (representing around 70.0% of total prisoners), Cyprus and Greece (close to 60.0%). However, the greatest incidences – in absolute terms – are found in Italy and Spain (more than 23,000 foreign prisoners in each country), Germany (around 17,500) and France (about 12,000) .

     The theme chosen by the Authors comes from their strong scientific interest in Migration, phenomenon that is inevitably leading to significant changes in the Italian demographic and socio-economic scene. Besides that, their attention on the combination foreigners-inmates has proved to be particularly significant, especially after the recent sentence imposed on Italy by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, on the issue concerning the overcrowding in Italian prisons.

     Indeed, the Strasbourg Court has called on Italy to address overpopulation in prisons as the overcrowding rate (Ov = Pp / Pc *100)[3] reached 142.5% in November 2012[4] and, though slightly declined, kept the alarming level of 139.9% in March 2013, that is, far exceeding the European one (99.6%). In other words, the above percentages tell that the whole 206 prisons located Italy were housing 140 inmates for every 100 places of standard capacity.

     Ultimately, the Strasbourg Court took the decision to reject the final appeal advanced by Italy and, consequently, adopted the former request of the European Court of Human Rights[5] which obliges the Italian country to rapidly resolve prison overcrowding (within a year from May 27th 2013) and provide for compensation the prisoners who are victims of that situation.

 

The prison population contained by the Italian country

           

     As already said above, Italy has some of the worst prison overcrowding in Europe, with a current total prison population of 65,831 units, which is 18,786 people above capacity (DAP[6], 2013, Tab. 1).

 

Regions

Number Prisons

Standard

Capacity

Prisoners*

Ov

Foreigners

(%)

Total

Females

Foreigners

Abruzzo

8

1,512

1,860

79

304

123.0

16.3

Apulia

11

2,459

4,078

221

741

165.8

18.2

Basilicata

3

441

441

16

60

100.0

13.6

Calabria

12

2,151

2,879

72

395

133.8

13.7

Campania

17

5,794

8,296

360

981

143.2

11.8

Emilia Romagna

13

2,465

3,631

131

1,871

147.3

51.5

Friuli Venezia Giulia

5

548

838

28

462

152.9

55.1

Lazio

14

4,834

7,231

482

2,974

149.6

41.1

Liguria

7

1,088

1,881

72

1,098

172.9

58.4

Lombardy

19

6,051

9,289

572

4,095

153.5

44.1

Marche

7

777

1,200

35

558

154.4

46.5

Molise

3

391

520

0

63

133.0

12.1

Piedmont

13

3,679

4,979

168

2,497

135.3

50.2

Sardinia

12

2,257

2,010

34

785

89.1

39.1

Sicily

27

5,559

7,081

179

1,279

127.4

18.1

Tuscany

18

3,261

4,124

160

2,225

126.5

54.0

Trentino Alto Adige

2

280

395

22

281

141.1

71.1

Umbria

4

1,332

1,628

72

681

122.2

41.8

Valle d’Aosta

1

181

271

0

199

149.7

73.4

Veneto

10

1,985

3,199

144

1,887

161.2

59.0

Total

206

47,045

65,831

2,847

23,436

139.9

35.6

Table 1: Inmates, regulatory capacity and overcrowding in Italian prisons by Region of detention.  March 31st 201.  Source: authors’ processing based on DAP data.

*The inmates in day-release are totaled in the number of prisoners.

 

     Among the prisoners housed in the Italian jails, there are great quotas of males (women do not exceed 4.3%) and foreigners[7] (35.6% of the total inmates are foreigners, unlike the 20.0% share held by the European Union).

     According to DAP statistical information (updated  to March 31st  2013, Fig. 1), the prison population is concentrated in the regional territories of Lombardy (9,289), Campania (8,296), Lazio (7,231) and Sicily (7,081), thus collecting nearby 50.0% of the total inmates in the country. The Regions detaining the smallest numbers of prisoners are Valle d’Aosta and Trentino Alto Adige (181 and 280 units, respectively).

Figure 1: Territorial distribution of total population detained in the Italian prisons.                March 31st 2013. Source: authors’ processing based on DAP data.

 

     However, as prison population is split into natives and foreigners, it’s interesting to observe that the former ones are mostly gathered in the South of the country while the latter ones, in the North. More specifically, the Regions housing large amounts of Italian inmates are Campania, Sicily, Lombardy, Lazio, Apulia and Calabria. Among the regional areas with great numbers of foreigners stand out, instead, Tuscany, Veneto, Emilia Romagna and Piedmont. Yet, in both Lombardy and Lazio, the quota of native prisoners is quite significant as the foreign one (Fig. 2).

     Several regional areas show strong foreign traits: as a matter of fact, only seven Regions (Abruzzo, Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, Molise, Apulia and Sicily) have a percentage of foreign inmates below the national average (that is, 35.6%).

     Even though the quota of foreign prisoners is quite high in Valle d’Aosta and Trentino Alto Adige (areas where ¾ of the total prisoners are foreigners), the foreign overrepresentation may certainly have greater impact in Regions with bigger capacity. Veneto,  Liguria, Friuli Venezia Giulia, Tuscany, Emilia Romagna and Piedmont are regional areas where, indeed, foreigner inmates exceed 50.0% of the respective total detained population (Tab. 1, Fig. 2).

 

              

    Figure 2:Territorial distribution of the (native and foreign) population detained

in the Italian prisons. March 31st 2013. Source: authors’ processing based on DAP data.

 

     As table 1 shows, prison overcrowding is an unlivable condition that, except for Basilicata and Sardinia, spares no Italian Region. Besides, only nine Regions are placed below the national overcrowding threshold (Ov = 139.9%), which means that 61.2% (that is, 40,309 units) of the total inmates is deeply affected by overcrowding (Fig. 3).

     The territorial analysis points out that only two Regions (Apulia and Campania) cause strong unlivable-suffering for native prisoners while, instead, six Regions (Liguria, Veneto, Emilia Romagna, Valle d’Aosta, Friuli Venezia Giulia and Trentino Alto Adige) do the same for foreign detainees (Tab. 2).

     However, by observing the different overcrowding rates of the above Regions, it looks like that the living-discomfort tolerated by foreigners may be less threatening than the one suffered by the Italians in Campania and Apulia. Yet, in Lombardy and Lazio, overcrowding is (more or less) equally underwent by both natives and foreigners.

Figure 3: Prison Overcrowding inItalian  Regions according to the National

Average (139,9%). March 31st 2013. Source: authors’ processing based on DAP data.

 

Regions

Ov

Natives

Foreigners

Total

    units

      %

      units

     %

       units

                %

Liguria

172.9

783

41.6

1,098

58.4

1,923

100.0

Apulia

165.8

3,337

81.8

741

18.2

4,160

100.0

Veneto

161.2

1,312

41.0

1,887

59.0

3,240

100.0

Marche

154.4

642

53.5

558

46.5

1,254

100.0

Lombardy

153.5

5,194

55.9

4,095

44.1

9,345

100.0

Friuli Venezia Giulia

152.9

376

44.9

462

55.1

883

100.0

Valle d’Aosta

149.7

72

26.6

199

73.4

298

100.0

Lazio

149.6

4,257

58.9

2,974

41.1

7,290

100.0

Emilia Romagna

147.3

1,760

48.5

1,871

51.5

3,679

100.0

Campania

143.2

7,315

88.2

981

11.8

8,384

100.0

Trentino Alto Adige

141.1

114

28.9

281

71.1

424

100.0

Total

– 

25,162

62.4

15,147

37.6

40,371

100.0

Table 2:Inmates in Italian prisons by Regions with great Ov (above national average = 139,9%). March 31st 2013. Source: authors’ processing based on DAP data.

 

Foreigners housed in the Italian prisons

    

     This analytical focus on foreign detainees perfectly fits the progressive increase of immigrants in Italy, phenomenon that – following the widespread trend of the Western world[8] is inevitably leading to significant changes in both demographic and socio-economic scenes[9]

     According to table 3, among the foreigners caged in the Italian prisons, there is a clear prevalence of Africans (49.0% of the total foreign prisoners), most of all coming from the Maghreb area (35.8%). They are followed by Europeans – members of EU (20.7%) and non (19.9%) – and then Americans and Asians who are certainly less (respectively 5.7% and 4.9%).

     Moreover, in the above context does not go unnoticed the high percentage of Nigerian females imprisoned, trait that is almost negligible in the other African countries.

     The most outstanding nationalities[10] among the foreign inmates are the Moroccan (19.0%), the Romanian (15.8%), the Tunisian (12.5%) and the Albanian (12.3%) ones, which all together sum 60.0% of the total, that is, nearby 14,000 of the whole foreigners housed in Italian prisons (23,436 units).

 

Area of Origin

Foreign Prisoners

M

F

Total

     units

        %

         units

          %

       units

                  %

Africa

10,918

49.0

241

21.1

11,159

47.6

Maghreb

7,987

35.8

60

5.2

8,047

34.3

Nigeria

878

3.9

132

11.5

1,010

4.3

Egypt

478

2.1

1

0.1

479

2.0

rest of Africa

1,575

7.1

48

4.2

1,623

6.9

Europe

9,042

40.6

665

58.1

9,707

41.4

EU

4,606

20.7

436

38.1

5,042

21.5

out EU

4,436

19.9

229

20.0

4,665

19.9

America

1,276

5.7

187

16.3

1,463

6.2

Perù

211

0.9

23

2.0

234

1.0

Dominican Republic

192

0.9

36

3.1

228

1.0

Ecuador

214

1.0

13

1.1

227

1.0

rest of America

659

3.0

115

10.1

774

3.3

Asia

1,088

4.9

49

4.3

1,137

4.9

China

309

1.4

27

2.4

336

1.4

Pakistan

125

0.6

1

0.1

126

0.5

India

115

0.5

0

0.0

115

0.5

rest of Asia

539

2.4

21

1.8

560

2.4

Total

22,292

100.0

1,144

100.0

23,436

100.0

Table 3Foreign prisoners by geographical area of origin. March 31st 2013.

Source: authors’ processing based on DAP data.

 

     As shown in figure 4, the four most representative foreign nationalities are differently distributed in the Italian territory:

 

           

 

 

 

             

Figure 4:Territorial distribution of the most outstanding foreign nationalities

(Moroccan, Romanian, Tunisian and Albanian) in Italian prisons.

March 31st 2013. Source: authors’ processing based on DAP data.

 

a) Moroccan prisoners are mainly concentrated in the area of Lombardy, Tuscany and Piedmont;

b) Romanian detainees are most of all located in Lazio. Yet, their lesser extend presence in Lombardy and Piedmont cannot be completely ignored;

c) Tunisian inmates are the most spread on whole Italian land. As a matter of fact, they are housed in Tuscany, Emilia Romagna, Lombardy and Veneto;

d) the Albanian ones are essentially hold in Lombardy and Tuscany.

     The Italian Regions gathering significant presence of all four nationalities (that means more than 1,000 units) are Lombardy (2,358), Tuscany (1,540), Lazio (1,476), Piedmont (1,439), Veneto (1,262) and  Emilia Romagna (1,254).

     At this point, in order to deepen the study on the four major foreign nationalities, it has been taken into account only those Regions featuring the following traits in their own penitentiary structure:

     1) a very high overcrowding rate, that is, above the national average (139.9%);

     2) a relevant share of foreign inmates, higher than the national one (35,6%);

     3) a considerable prison capacity (above 1,000 standard places)[11].

     By doing so, as tables 4a and 4b show, it has been identified the six Regions (Lombardy, Lazio, Emilia Romagna, Veneto, Liguria and Marche) where the most outstanding foreign prisoners (Moroccans, Romanians, Tunisians and Albanians) may “extremely” suffer of unlivable-overcrowding. Specifically, the outcomes reveal that each Region of the ones mentioned above:

a) holds a considerable amount of foreign inmates of all four nationalities, aggregates that range from nearby 50.0% in Lazio to 67.0% in Emilia Romagna (Tab. 4a);

b) causes “equal overcrowding distress” to each foreign group. Basically, since the four major foreign presences are hold by the six Regions at quite the same percentage (ranging from 52.3% for Moroccans to 54.6 for Romanians), it is certainly fair to say that there is a kind of “prison unlivable homogeneity” among the four nationalities. Likewise, a fifty-fifty discomfort can be found even among each single nationality (Tab. 4b).  

 

Region

A*

B**

C***

Morocco

Romania

Tunisia

Albania

subtotal

rest

for.

total

for.

Lombardy

9,289

153.5

44.1

23.1

14.2

7.9

12.3

57.6

42.4

100.0

Lazio

7,231

149.6

41.1

7.6

26.6

6.3

9.1

49.6

50.4

100.0

E. Romagna

3,631

147.3

51.5

23.4

10.6

21.1

12.0

67.0

33.0

100.0

Veneto

3,199

161.2

59.0

20.1

13.8

18.7

14.3

66.9

33.1

100.0

Liguria

1,881

172.9

58.4

24.8

11.6

15.6

12.5

64.4

35.6

100.0

Marche

1,200

154.4

46.5

14.2

10.4

18.3

23.1

65.9

34.1

100.0

Table 4a:Distribution of Moroccans, Romanians, Tunisians and Albanians by Region

with great capacity, Oand foreign presence. March 31st 2013.

Source: authors’ processing based on DAP data.

AStandard Capacity; B**  Overcrowding rate; C*** Total Foreign inmates/Total inmates (x100).

 

     In addition, table 4a shows that the overcrowding-suffering is territorially diversified:

1) most of Moroccans are so much affected by the above phenomenon in Lombardy, Emilia Romagna, Veneto and Liguria;

     2) huge quotas of Romanians experience unlivable conditions in Lazio;

3) large amounts of Tunisians endure living-discomforts in Emilia Romagna and Veneto, and they do so quite as much as Moroccans do in the same Regions;

     4) lots of Albanians undergo same inadequacies in Marche.   

 

Region

Morocco

Romania

Tunisia

Albania

Lombardy

21.2

15.8

11.1

17.4

Lazio

5.1

21.4

6.4

9.4

Emilia Romagna

9.8

5.4

13.5

7.8

Veneto

8.5

7.1

12.0

9.3

Liguria

6.1

3.4

5.8

4.7

Marche

1.8

1.6

3.5

4.5

subtotal

52.5

54.6

52.3

53.1

the rest of Regions

47.5

45.4

47.7

46.9

Italy

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Table 4b:Distribution of Moroccans, Romanians, Tunisians and Albanians by   Region

with great capacity, Oand foreign presence. March 31st 2013

Source: authors’ processing based on DAP data.

 

Conclusions

 

     The analysis performed on the combination  foreign prisoner-overcrowding has allowed to address the prison issue in accordance with a more specific approach that compares the Italian native component and the foreign one. This has enabled to highlight that the overcrowding phenomenon is not an aspect suffered mainly by foreign prisoners, but it is equally underwent by most of the natives ones.

     The outcomes show that Moroccans, Romanians, Tunisians and Albanians are the foreigners at increased risk of prison overcrowding since they collect the 60% of the total foreign presence in Italian prisons.

     Furthermore, this analysis revealed that there is a sort of “equal overcrowding distress” among the foreign inmates. Basically, the four major foreign presences are hold by the six Regions at the same percentage, circumstance that likely generates a kind of homogeneity of prison unlivable conditions.

     Although overcrowding is not exclusively suffered by foreign prisoners, the fact is that foreigners – as already mentioned in the introduction – undoubtedly form part of weak categories. Actually, the paradoxical effects that the Italian Criminal Justice has on immigration issues reverberate on the prison system: in fact, the number of foreign prisoners tends to increase for minor offenses (such as detention for the ones whose residence permit is expired). Likewise, there is a significant relapse on the individual rights of those foreigners who have to face greater difficulties in accessing rights and guarantees offered by the Italian social system[12].

     Additionally, foreigners have to – more than Italians do – undergo pre-trial detention because they usually lack of fixed residences and/or an adequate accommodations, circumstance that often makes the optional “arrest-at-home” impossible to get[13]. Actually, when foreigners are convicted, they have greater chances to be punished with imprisonment rather than with alternative penalties. Even the precarious economic conditions give foreigners few opportunities to replace a short period of imprisonment with a mere fine. Besides, foreigners can hardly rely on high-quality legal advocacy services, and usually have communication problems due to lack of knowledge of the Italian language[14].

     In short, overcrowding in Italian prisons is still hardly finding plausible solutions. The conclusion of the Strasbourg judges, in our opinion, is irrefutable: as any other developed country, Italy has to face the prison overcrowding and find adequate solutions right away.

 

    

Bibliography

 

BOCCI Elena, Sbarre dentro e fuori il carcere, Aracne, 2011, pp. 217.

BUFFA Pietro, “Prigioni. Amministrare la sofferenza”,  Le staffette Collana, EGA-Edizioni Gruppo Abele, 2013, pp. 296.

CAMPESI Giuseppe, RE Lucia, TORRENTE Giovanni (eds.), “Dietro le sbarre e oltre. Due ricerche sul carcere in Italia”, Diritto, devianza e società Collana, L’Harmattan Italia, Torino, 2009, pp. 288.

GALLIENA  Elena, BROCCHIERI Fabrizia, “Carcere e trattamento in alta sicurezza. Protagonisti a confronto”, Politiche e servizi sociali Collana, No. 299, Franco Angeli, 2012, pp. 160.

ISTAT, Gli Stranieri e il carcere. Aspetti della detenzione, Istituto Nazionale di Statistica, Sezione Giustizia, Roma, 2006, pp, 126.

NALDI, Alessandra, “Detenuti stranieri, un mondo a parte: il circolo vizioso tra disagio abitativo e percorsi penali”, in Alternative al cielo a scacchi. Problema abitativo e sistema penale, Massari Luca, Molteni Andrea (eds.), Franco Angeli, 2006, pp. 176.

TIDEI Pietro (ed.), La situazione penitenziaria in Italia. Problemi e prospettive,  Vecchiarelli, 2010, pp. 168.

 

Electronic resources

 

ANSA.IT cronache, Carceri sovraffollate al 142,5%, maglia nera Ue, 19/11/2012, http://www.ansa.it/ , (accessed on 23 November 2012)

DAP, Detenuti stranieri presenti, Dipartimento dell’amministrazione penitenziaria, Ufficio per lo sviluppo e la gestione del sistema informativo automatizzato statistica ed automazione di supporto dipartimentale, Sezione Statistica, Ministero della Giustizia, aggiornamenti al 31 marzo 2013,

     http://www.giustizia.it/giustizia/it/mg_1_14.wp?selectedNode=0_2 ,

     (accessed on 13 May 2013)

ICPS, Entire world Prison Population Rates. Europe, International Centre of Prison Studies, 2012, http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/?search=europe&x=Europe ,

     (accessed on 15 April 2013)

LA STAMPA.IT Cronache, Carceri, Strasburgo rigetta il ricorso In Italia un anno per la soluzione, 27/05/2013, http://www.lastampa.it/ , (accessed on 30 May 2013)

UN, Handbook on Prisoners with special needs, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime/Unodc,  2009,

     http://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/Prisoners-with-special-needs.pdf , (accessed on 13 May 2013).

 



[1] UN, Handbook on Prisoners with special needs, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime/Unodc,  2009, http://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/Prisoners-with-special-needs.pdf , (accessed on 13 May 2013).

[2] ICPS, Entire world Prison Population Rates. Europe, International Centre of Prison Studies, 2012, http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/?search=europe&x=Europe , (accessed on 15 April 2013).

[3] The Overcrowding rate (Ov) is given by the ratio of Total Prison Population (Pp) and Standard Prison Capacity (Pc).

[4] Higher levels were found in the jails of Mistretta in Messina-Sicily (270.0%), Brescia (255.0%) and Busto Arsizio in Varese (251.0%); in both latter ones, the foreign inmates were many more than the native ones – Ansa.it Cronache, Carceri sovraffollate al 142,5%, maglia nera Ue, 19/11/2012,  http://www.ansa.it/ , (accessed on 23 November 2012).

[5] According to the Court of Human Rights, Italy infringes Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. Thus, the EU-court has fined Italy over violating inmates’ basic rights. (La Stampa.it Cronache, Carceri, “Strasburgo rigetta il ricorso In Italia un anno per la soluzione”, 27/05/2013, http://www.lastampa.it/ , accessed on 30 May 2013).

[6] DAP, Detenuti stranieri presenti, Dipartimento dell’amministrazione penitenziaria, Ufficio per lo sviluppo e la gestione del sistema informativo automatizzato statistica ed automazione di supporto dipartimentale, Sezione Statistica, Ministero della Giustizia, aggiornamenti al 31 marzo 2013, http://www.giustizia.it/giustizia/it/mg_1_14.wp?selectedNode=0_2 , (accessed on 13 May 2013).

[7] This connotation that has been established for several years now, although the Directive of Repatriation – which included imprisonment in case of breaches of the removal order – has been rejected by the European Court of Justice in April 2011. Indeed, in December 2010, the foreign inmates in Italian prisons reached 36.7%.

[8] Alessandra NALDI, “Detenuti stranieri, un mondo a parte: il circolo vizioso tra disagio abitativo e percorsi penali”, in Alternative al cielo a scacchi. Problema abitativo e sistema penale, Massari Luca, Molteni Andrea (eds.), Franco Angeli, 2006, pp. 176.

      [9] ISTAT,   “Gli  Stranieri  e   il  carcere.   Aspetti  della detenzione”,   Istituto   Nazionale  di  Statistica,    Sezione

Giustizia, Roma, 2006, pp, 126.

[10] The ten most representative foreign nationalities in Italian prisons are: 1) Morocco (19.0%), 2) Romania (15.8%), 3) Tunisia (12.5%), 4) Albania (12.3%), 5) Nigeria (4.3%), 6) Algeria (2.6%), 7) Egypt (2.0%), 8) former Yugoslavia (2.0%), 9) Senegal (1.7%), 10) Bulgaria (1.5%).

[11] In this regard, three regions  (Trentino Alto Adige, Valle d’Aosta and Friuli Venezia Giulia) have been discarded from this analysis as – though having a high overcrowding rate and a great foreign presence – have a small prison capacity, that is, below 1,000 places.

[12] Giuseppe CAMPESI, Lucia Re, Giovanni Torrente, “Dietro le sbarre e oltre. Due ricerche sul carcere in Italia”,  Diritto, devianza e società Collana, L’Harmattan Italia, Torino, 2009, pp. 288; Pietro TIDEI, La situazione penitenziaria in Italia. Problemi e prospettive,  Vecchiarelli, 2010, pp. 168.

[13] Pietro BUFFA, “Prigioni. Amministrare la sofferenza”,  Le staffette Collana, EGA-Edizioni Gruppo Abele, 2013, pp. 296.

[14] Elena BOCCI, Sbarre dentro e fuori il carcere, Aracne, 2011, pp. 217; Elena GALLIENA , Fabrizia BROCCHIERI, “Carcere e trattamento in alta sicurezza. Protagonisti a confronto”, Politiche e servizi sociali Collana, No. 299, Franco Angeli, 2012, pp. 160.

0 raspunsuri

Lasă un răspuns

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Lasă un răspuns