Navigating the dichotomy of smart prisons: between surveillance and rehabilitation

ABSTRACT

The use of AI has progressed rapidly in recent years, and the notion of smartness is commonplace. However, while the topic of smart cities has received considerable research attention, there has been a lack of discussion about the use of smart technologies in prisons. While, especially in Eastern countries, AI in law enforcement is mainly used for security and control purposes (in Hong Kong, intelligent CCTV can detect unusual behaviour, and wristbands are used to collect data on prisoners), in Northern Europe the trend is to build smart prisons where AI is used as a rehabilitation tool (in Finland, Virtual Reality is employed to help rehabilitation). Adopting a comparative approach, the aim of this article is to demonstrate that AI is a transformative technology that is provoking structural changes in criminal law enforcement – especially in prisons – and that these changes express two opposing tendencies, that could transform the essence of penalties.

KEYWORDS:

• Smart prisons
• surveillance
• biometric identification
• rehabilitation
• virtual reality

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 To have an overview on smart cities and digitalization of services see, among others, Hafedh Chourabi and others, ‘Understanding Smart Cities: An Integrative Framework’, 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2012); David Eckhoff and Isabel Wagner, ‘Privacy in the Smart City-Applications, Technologies, Challenges, and Solutions’ (2018) 20 IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 489; Marta Ziosi and others, ‘Smart Cities: Reviewing the Debate about Their Ethical Implications’ (2022) Ai & Society (available at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-022-01558-0).

2 Anne Kaun and Fredrik Stiernstedt, ‘Doing time, the smart way Temporalities of the smart prison’ (2020) 22(9) New Media & Society 1581.

3 Brian Jefferson, Digitize and Punish: Racial Criminalization in the Digital Age (U. of Minnesota Press, 2020).

4 Carolyn McKay, ‘The carceral automaton: Digital prisons and technologies of detention’ (2022) 11 International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 100-119.

5 Yvonne Jewkes, ‘The Use of Media in Constructing Identities in the Masculine Environment of Men’s Prisons’ (2002) 17 European Journal of Communication 205. See also Victoria Knight, Remote Control: Television in Prison (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016).

6 Steven Van De Steene and Victoria Knight, ‘Digitizing the Prison: The Light and Dark Future’ (2017) 231 Digitizing Prison Service Journal 22–30.

7 Anne Kaun and Fredrik Stiernstedt, Prison Media: Incarceration and the Infrastructures of Work and Technology (MIT Press, 2023) 64. In addition, some scholars have identified the following as smart prisons’ features: ‘Smart security (integrated interconnection system); Smart governance (free access system, office platform, and website); Intelligent correction (supervision of online positioning); Implementing the smart law (fairly activating the penalty)’ see Islam A. Alshafey, Henar A. Ahmed, and Hesham S. Hussein. ‘Smart Prisons and the ability to achieve goals and standards of the facility in terms of raising its humanitarian and security efficiency’ (2022) 6 (9) Journal of Positive School Psychology 1407-1444.

8 To have an interesting and insightful overview of the issues and potential effects connected to the employment of smart technologies for criminal justice purposes, see Roger Brownsword and Alon Harel, ‘Law, Liberty and Technology: Criminal Justice in the Context of Smart Machines’ (2019) 15 International Journal of Law in Context 107-125.

9 Anne Kaun and Fredrik Stiernstedt (n 2).

10 Carolyn McKay, ‘The carceral automaton: Digital prisons and technologies of detention’ (2022) 11(1) International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 100-119.

11 Antonio Fabelo, ‘Technocorrections, the Promises, the Uncertain Threats.’, No. 5. (2000) US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

12 Victoria Knight and Steven Van De Steene, ‘The capacity and capability of digital innovation in prisons: Towards smart prisons’ (2017) 4(8) Advancing Corrections 88-101.

13 ECHR, 13 June 2019, Marcello Viola v. Italy (no. 2), translation from Italian to English by the author.

14 On this, see the new interesting book Anne Kaun and Fredrik Stiernstedt, Prison Media: Incarceration and the Infrastructures of Work and Technology (MIT Press, 2023), according to which ‘Prisons serve as testbed environments for developing new media technologies’.

15 Anne Kaun and Fredrik Stiernstedt (n 9).

16 Nancy La Vigne,, Robin Halberstadt, and Barbara Parthasarathy, ‘Evaluating the Use of Radio Frequency Identification Device Technology to Prevent and Investigate Sexual Assault and Related Acts of Violence in a Women's Prison’ (2009) (available at https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/229196.pdf). See also: ‘Evaluability Assessment of Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID) Use in Correctional Settings’ available online at: <https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/radio-frequency-identification.pdf>.

17 Ibid.

18 Peiliang Sun, Smart Prisons (Springer, 2022).

19 The Statement of Work No.2 of Inside the Walls Inmate Monitoring (a part of the Master Monitoring Services and Subscription Agreement, entered into as of September 27, 2021, by and between Talitrix, LLC and the Fulton country Sheriff by and on behalf of the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office, provided that: ‘The System is designed to track the locations of participating inmates, correctional officers within the Facility, as well as to track certain biometric data related to the participating inmates. The system will comprise a Software-based database and tracking/monitoring/reporting system, wearable tracking devices to be worn by participating inmates and correctional officers while on duty in the facility, as well as RF tracking and positioning devices.’ The full version available at: <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23837641-talitrix-inside-the-walls-foia-document>.

20 In this sense, and to have a focus on the movement from non-automated processes to automated processes, see Brownsword and Harel (n 8) 117.

21 Rakesh Channaiah, ‘Preventing Escapes and Violence: How Video Analytics Can Help Improve Prison Security’ available online at: <https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/preventing-escapes-violence-how-video-analytics-can-help-rakesh/>

22 Melissa Mann, ‘5 ways video analytics can improve correctional facility security’ (2018) available online at <https://www.corrections1.com/video-in-corrections/articles/5-ways-video-analytics-can-improve-correctional-facility-security-4vpkLJL2AqAwjwSA/ >.

23 Michelle Sydes, Shannon Dodd, and Emma Antrobus, ‘Body cameras behind bars: Exploring correctional officers’ feelings of safety with body-worn cameras’ (2022) 22(2) Criminology & Criminal Justice 323-342.

24 Sophia Yan, ‘Chinese high-security jail puts AI monitors in every cell to make prison breaks impossible’, (2019), The Telegraph, <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/01/chinese-prison-rolls-facial-recognition-sensors-trainmates/>.

25 Alison Liebling and Ben Crewe, ‘Prisons beyond the new penology: The shifting moral foundations of prison management’ in Jonathan Simon and Richard Sparks (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Punishment and Society (Sage 2013) 283-307.

26 Xinjiang is home to 12 million ethnic minority Uyghurs, most of whom are Muslim. See Jane Wakefield, ‘AI emotion-detection software tested on Uyghurs’ (2021), BBC News <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57101248 >.

27 Kristin Houser, ‘China Is Installing “AI Guards” in Prison Cells’, (2019), Futurism, <https://futurism.com/chinese-prison-ai-guards-cells>.

28 Nick Carbone, ‘South Korea rolls out robotic prison guards’ (2011), Time <https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/11/27/south-korea-debuts-robotic-prison-guards/>.

29 Anne Kaun and Fredrik Stiernstedt (n 14).

30 Peiliang Sun (n 18).

31 See Anne Kaun and Fredrik Stiernstedt (n 14) at 154-155, who perfectly summarize the traditional conception of prisons: ‘Behind the new punitiveness are strategies that emphasize incapacitation (over rehabilitation) as the main motivation for prison sentences. The simple theory behind the idea that ‘prison works’ – as the slogan by the British Conservative Party goes – is that it incapacitates ‘criminals’ and hence prevents them from committing further crimes. The era of mass incarceration and the new punitive turn hence rests on the control over movement in space, on immobilization. To be incarcerated is to be stripped off any control or autonomy not only over how one is doing time but also how one is ‘doing space.’ This is a general and very basic idea that has been underpinning penal regimes in the Western world at least since the inception of the modern prison.’

32 Ervin Goffman, ‘The Characteristics of Total Institutions’ (1957) Symposium on Preventive and Social Psychiatry, 15–17 April, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Washington, D.C. According to the author: ‘When we review the different institutions in our Western society, we find a class of them which seems to be encompassing to a degree discontinuously greater than the ones next in line. Their encompassing or total character is symbolized by the barrier to social intercourse with the outside that is often built right into the physical plant: locked doors, high walls, barbed wire, cliffs and water, open terrain, and so forth. These I am calling total institutions, and it is their general characteristics I want to explore’ (313).

33 Yvonne Jewkes and Bianca Reisdorf, ‘A Brave New World: The Problems and Opportunities Presented by New Media Technologies in Prisons’ (2016) 16 Criminology and Criminal Justice 536.

34 Ibid.

35 Yvonne Jewkes and Helen Johnston, '“Cavemen in an Era of Speed-of-Light Technology”: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Communication within Prisons’ (2009) 48 The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 132.

36 Anne Kaun and Fredrik Stiernstedt (n 2).

37 Ibid.

38 Peter Smith, ‘Imprisonment and Internet-Access: Human Rights, the Principle of Normalization and the Question of Prisoners Access to Digital Communications Technology’ (2012) 30 Nordic Journal of Human Rights 454.

39 Hence, as outlined by Kaun and Stiernstedt (n 2), the relationship between digital technologies and the prison environment is characterised by ambivalence, with a paradoxical situation of a data-intensive environment that constantly observes and documents prisoners while providing limited access to digital technology for prisoners themselves. Although digital technologies are increasingly employed for surveillance purposes, they are still controversially discussed in the context of rehabilitation and access by prisoners. In this sense, the prison reproduces and amplifies the divide observed in the smart city context between smartification and exclusion from smart technologies. See also Rob Kitchin, ‘The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism.’ (2014) 79 GeoJournal 1-14.

40 Steven Van De Steene, ‘The Principle of Normality: The New Normal is Digital – Applying the Principle of Normality in a Digital Society’ (2020) Smart Corrections <https://www.smartcorrections.org/single-post/2020/03/16/The-principle-of-Normality-the-new-normal-is-digital---Applying-the-principle-of-Normality-in-a-digital-society>.

41 Jaziar Radianti and others, ‘A Systematic Review of Immersive Virtual Reality Applications for Higher Education: Design Elements, Lessons Learned, and Research Agenda’ (2020) 147 Computers & Education 103778.

42 Noureddine Elmqaddem, ‘Augmented reality and virtual reality in education. Myth or reality?’ (2019) 14(3) International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning 234-242.

43 Hermann Barbe, Jürgen L. Müller, Bruno Siegel and Peter Fromberger, 'An Open Source Virtual Reality Training Framework for the Criminal Justice System' (2023) 50 Criminal Justice and Behavior 294.

44 Philippe Fuchs, Guillaume Moreau, and Pascal Guitton, eds, Virtual Reality: Concepts and Technologies (CRC Press 2011).

45 On the importance of VR in education, Noureddine Elmqaddem (n 42) who has claimed that ‘The value of adopting virtual reality in education and learning is related in part to the fact that this technology can improve and facilitate learning, increase memory capacity and make better decisions while working in entertaining and stimulating conditions. In fact, when we read textual content (on a printed document for example), our brain uses a process of interpretation of everything we read, which increases our cognitive efforts. In the case of the use of virtual reality, the process of interpretation is reduced because there are fewer symbols to interpret and the understanding is more direct. For example, it is easier to understand how a machine works by visualizing the process of its operation than by reading a textual explanation. And, when the visualization is in 3D / VR, it is even clearer. Having physical access to all what we learn is not possible, hence the importance of VR, which allows us to access everything we want, virtually, as if we really are there. The learner can for example explore the moon or the ocean floor or the state of a place as it has been in the past. This allows a better understanding of things and phenomena with less cognitive efforts on the part of the learner, and less cost for the institute that deals with learning. The learner feels more engaged, more motivated and more receptive and ready to learn and communicate with others.’.

46 See Pia Puolakka, ‘Criminal Sanctions Agency and University of Tampere working together to test the rehabilitation of prisoners in a virtual world’ (2020), <https://www.rikosseuraamus.fi/en/index/topical/pressreleasesandnews/Pressreleasesandnews2020/criminalsanctionsagencyanduniversityoftampereworkingtogethertotesttherehabilitationofprisonersinavirtualworld_0.html>. More specifically, the author reports that ‘the pilot prisons are Riihimäki Prison and Turku Prison (Finland), where the virtual environments are offered in particular to prisoners who are isolated and have limited access to other activities. In addition, Helsinki Prison, which had a separate project to test virtual reality already last year, will be included in the pilot.’

47 Pia Poulakka, ‘Virtual Reality in Rehabilitation’ (2020), [Power Point Slides], Criminal Sanctions Agency and University of Tampere, Finland and J-SAFE Project funded under the European Union’s JUST- AG-GA No. 763714.

48 Pia Puolakka, ‘Smart Prison: From Prison Digitalisation to Prison Using, Learning and Training Artificial Intelligence’, (2022) Justice Trend, <https://justice-trends.press/smart-prison-from-prison-digitalisation-to-prison-using-learning-and-training-artificial-intelligence/>.

49 Victoria Knight and Steven Van De Steene (n 12).

50 A similar reflection is accurately made by Alberto di Martino, ‘Carcere, Covid-19: tutto è chiaro quel che non va; cosa si può fare, visto quel che non si vuole fare?’ in G. Palmieri (a cura di), Oltre la pandemia. Società, salute, economia e regole nell’era post Covid-19, Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli, 2020, pp. 1147-1173. In particular, the author recalls the reflections of the philosopher Philip Pettit, who theorises a model of criminal law not based on the principles of liberal criminal law, but on a social democratic approach that integrates the principles of the so-called republican theory, including the concept of freedom understood as ‘freedom from domination’ (non-domination). Punishment is no longer conceived as retribution or utility, but as ‘rectification’, that is, as a way to correct the crime committed: in this sense, the state, no longer concerned with exercising domination over the offender, can take care of the implementation of the process of directification, which is specified in the three mechanisms of ‘recognition’, ‘reward’, and ‘reassurance’, which should trace the perimeter of the articulation of punishments and their concrete imposition. For Pettit’s complete work, see Philip Pettit, ‘Republican theory and criminal punishment’ (1997) 9 Utilitas 59.

51 Europris is a non-partisan and non-governmental entity that was established in 2011. The idea to create EuroPris was conceived during the Swedish EU Presidency in 2009 and was endorsed by the European nations participating in the International Roundtable for Correctional Excellence. EuroPris brings together professionals in the field of corrections with the specific purpose of promoting ethical and rights-oriented incarceration, facilitating the exchange of information, and offering expert assistance to further this agenda. The organization’s mission is to enhance cooperation among European Prison and Correctional Services, with the ultimate goals of improving the well-being of prisoners and their families, bolstering public safety and security, reducing re-offending rates, and advancing professionalism in the field of corrections.

52 See Pia Puolakka and Steven Van De Steene, ‘Artificial Intelligence in Prisons in 2030: An Exploration on the Future of AI in Prisons’, (2021) Advancing Corrections Journal 131-132.

53 RISE AI is part of a broader project underway in Finland: the aforementioned Smart Prison Project.

54 David Garland, The Culture of Crime Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society (Oxford University Press 2001).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Federica Fedorczyk

Federica Fedorczyk is a PhD Fellow in Law at the DIRPOLIS Institute, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies (Pisa, Italy). Her research focuses on the intersection between AI and the criminal justice system, the shift towards a securitarian criminal law, digital authoritarianism, and the use of mass surveillance.