The "Smart Prison" in Criminal Policy Discourses

• In Event: Crime, Science and Politics WG Panel 8: Crime, Media, and Populist Discourse

Abstract

Various digitization efforts in prisons have been discussed internationally for some time under the buzzword “smart prison”. On the one hand, surveillance and other security technologies are being tested: in China, for example, corridors and cells supposedly are monitored using so-called intelligent video cameras; US prisons are testing the use of intelligent voice recognition software to monitor prisoners' phone calls, and in Hong Kong, bracelets are being tested that track the location and vital signs of prisoners. On the other hand, the buzzword “smart prison” is also used to describe projects that, at least at first glance, seem to make prisoners' lives easier or contribute to social rehabilitation, such as in-cell communication systems.
There are also various pilot projects in German prisons which, for example, give prisoners access to the internet, in some cases also video telephony with relatives, or use intelligent video surveillance to prevent suicides. Other security technologies such as drone defense, mobile phone suppression and tasers are also regularly discussed.
New technological possibilities evoke hopes, fears and desires. Security and crime policy discourses legitimize new technological control methods but are also shaped by the available security technologies. Drawing on concepts from the area of Science and Technology Studies, this paper aims to examine the criminal policy debate in the Federal Republic of Germany regarding the prevailing ideas of what new technologies can and should achieve in the penal system and how expectations of what a prison must achieve are changing as a result of new technical possibilities. On the other hand, the fears regarding technological developments in this context and their legal containment will also be examined. The investigation is carried out by analyzing case law, legislative materials and media reports, among other things.

Author

• Charlotte Korenke, Ruhr-Universität Bochum