Пълен протокол на разискванията

Четвъртък, 5 октомври 2017 г. - Страсбург

5.2. Системите на местата за лишаване от свобода и условията в тях (A8-0251/2017 - Joëlle Bergeron)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania

  Curzio Maltese (GUE/NGL). – Signor Presidente, il numero dei detenuti in Europa supera più di un terzo il numero dei posti disponibili. In alcuni Stati membri, compresa l'Italia, la situazione è drammatica.

Ho votato a favore di questa relazione, anche perché dichiara con chiarezza che non c'è alcuna correlazione tra la severità delle pene e il calo del tasso di criminalità. Lo scopo degli Stati, non è la vendetta, ma la sconfitta del crimine. E per raggiungere questo obiettivo non servono le pene più dure, ma più giuste e utili a recuperare i detenuti.

Deve essere chiaro che la privazione della libertà non deve degenerare nella privazione della dignità. Per questo è importante studiare misure alternative al carcere tradizionale, promuovere azioni di recupero culturale, formazione e istruzione che aprono ai detenuti nuove prospettive.

Ho conosciuto detenuti che erano killer mafiosi e oggi sono operai, artigiani, artisti e altri detenuti che non erano delinquenti, ma soltanto poveri che in carcere sono diventati mafiosi. La differenza è tra un'esperienza e una tortura.

  Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Mr President, I think that the main tasks of prisons are not only to be an instrument for punishment and isolation, but also to be institutions that prevent future crimes and help prisoners return to normal life. This cannot happen if the prisoners live in bad conditions, with overcrowded rooms, or if experienced prisoners are held in the same cells as young people convicted for minor crimes. We should establish dignified conditions of detention, create possibilities for socialisation, encourage rehabilitation and reintegration into society, develop educational facilities for prisoners, and ensure a safer living and working environment for both prisoners and staff.

I’m worried that the Latvian Government will postpone a project to build a new, modern prison in my country, and thus the closing of three old, overcrowded prisons. This is not an act of political wisdom, nor is it in the interest of the society. However, I voted in favour of this report yet again.

  John Flack (ECR). – Mr President, this is the first time I have spoken here since taking my seat in July. I wanted to wait until I actually had something worth saying and something I could speak knowledgeably about – not as a prisoner, as has been the experience of some here, but as a long-serving British magistrate. I have visited many types of prisons, and have seen for myself the good, the bad and the downright frightening. These experiences have led me to vote against this report, not because of its good intentions, but because it does not adequately address the most urgent issue facing prisons across Europe, as well as in Norwich, Bedford, Chelmsford and in the other prisons across my region: that is the rise of radical and violent ideologies and terrorist radicalisation.

Secondly, in its utopian call for fewer prisons, it goes far beyond the competences of this Parliament. These are matters that should, and indeed must, be left to individual nation states. For these reasons, and several others, I voted against.

  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-н Председател, гласувах против този доклад, защото колегата Бержерон се е съсредоточила върху подобряването на условията за живот, липсата на грижи и медицинско обслужване и реинтеграция на затворниците, но е обърнато много малко внимание върху проблема с нарастващия феномен на разпространяването на радикални и насилствени идеологии и терористичната радикализация в много затвори в държавите – членки на Европейския съюз.

Освен това, въпреки че в доклада изрично се посочва, че затворническите условия и управлението на затворите са отговорност на държавите членки, в много отношения той отива твърде далеч, като призовава държавите членки да приемат независими механизми за наблюдение на затворите, да се отделят адекватни средства за обновяване и модернизиране на затворите и да насърчават алтернативите за лишените от свобода.

Ето защо заради тези липси гласувах против доклада.

  Jonathan Arnott (EFDD). – Mr President, first of all, if you want to have fewer prisons, you have to start by having fewer criminals. You need to cut the rate of offending. That means we need to be in a position where we can cut the rate of reoffending by people who come out of prison.

I believe fundamentally in rehabilitation. I believe that it is good for society if you can take people and put them back on the straight and narrow. If you want to do that, however, you have to do it with teeth. You have to make sure that people who get early release from prison have got three things: that they behave in prison; that they develop their education whilst in prison; and, fundamentally, that they get a job to go to, so they can break the cycle of reoffending when they come out. If we do all of those things, then, yes, of course society should invest in helping prisoners to rehabilitate.

We hear much about the carrot but we don’t hear very much about the stick when it comes to anything related to our judicial system. I really do believe we need to make sure that those people who do not engage in the process have got tough prison conditions, and that prison then becomes for them a place of punishment.

Lastly, what we are completely missing in all of this is that this is not a matter for the European Union. It is for Member States to decide on their own prison systems.

  Sylvie Goddyn (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, la surpopulation carcérale et les mauvaises conditions de détention sont évidemment une réalité dans les prisons en Europe. Mon pays, la France, s’est illustré au fil de ses gouvernements successifs par une dégradation généralisée de sa capacité pénitentiaire.

Il est certes essentiel de moderniser et de rénover les prisons, pour autant, certaines solutions préconisées dans ce rapport me semblent dangereuses, notamment l’incitation au recours à des peines ou mesures non privatives de liberté, qui reflète, une fois de plus, le triomphe du laxisme pénal.

À l’heure du radicalisme islamiste, de l’explosion de la délinquance et du terrorisme, rien ne justifie l’aménagement des peines. On peut d’ailleurs regretter que, dans ce rapport, le phénomène de radicalisation ne soit jamais associé à l’islamisme. Aussi, comment voulez-vous combattre un problème sans même le nommer?

Je rappelle que l’islam radical a pris la vie de deux jeunes filles à Marseille, dimanche dernier, précisément parce que la société a oublié qu’il fallait enfermer durablement ou expulser les délinquants multirécidivistes.

C’est la raison pour laquelle j’ai voté contre ce rapport.

  Lola Sánchez Caldentey (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, la situación de las prisiones en muchos Estados de la Unión es preocupante. Muchas prisiones se encuentran en situación de saturación o la han rebasado ya. Los recursos que se destinan, tanto a la reintegración de los presos como a programas de acompañamiento a la libertad condicional, son alarmantemente insuficientes. Solo un dato: la tasa de reincidencia excede el 50 % en algunos Estados de la Unión.

Desafortunadamente, la protección de los derechos fundamentales y de la dignidad humana, que son cruciales en cualquier sociedad democrática, ha sido repetidamente puesta en entredicho por el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y el Comité Europeo para la Prevención de la Tortura y de las Penas o Tratos Inhumanos o Degradantes. Los sistemas centrados exclusivamente en torno al castigo son inefectivos y, a menudo, contraproducentes.

Creemos que nuestras sociedades merecen mucho más que poblaciones carcelarias crecientes y alarmantes tasas de reincidencia, y es por eso por lo que pedimos la implementación de sistemas de mediación y justicia reparativa, la implementación y adecuada dotación presupuestaria de programas de reintegración durante y después de la condena y el fin de los procesos de privatización de las prisiones públicas.

  Branislav Škripek (ECR). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, Európsky parlament nemá kompetencie na stanovovanie štandardov pre väznice v členských štátoch. To si určujú samotné členské štáty, je to otázka subsidiarity, my sa nemôžeme snažiť ich určovať. Naše slovenské štátne väznice majú dva ciele: prevychovávať kriminálnikov a, samozrejme, potrestať ich, ale prevychovať ich. Čo by malo trápiť Úniu je osobnostná zmena už tých ľudí, ktorí sú vo väzniciach, a prevencia radikalizácie. Majú sa zmeniť ku dobrému. Ale čo vidíme? Šírenie džihádizmu, a to je metlou súčasnej spoločnosti, ktorá spôsobuje teroristické útoky na civilné obyvateľstvá, a my musíme podporovať skupiny a opatrenia, ktoré dosahujú úspech v skutočnej zmene človeka v srdci a vo vnútri a v pozitívnom smerovaní ich života. Pracovníci kresťanských organizácií a kresťanskí kazatelia vidia, ako sa životy väzňov naprieč Európou už v minulosti menili vďaka moci evanjelia Ježiša Krista. Vidia túto premenu mužov a žien, ktorí dnes vedia pomáhať druhým, tak namiesto kazateľov džihádu potrebujeme v našich väzniciach evanjelium s odkazom nádeje a pokoja, lebo Ježiš Kristus je ten, ktorý mení život zločinca na človeka mieru, pokoja a lásky.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, los socialistas y, en particular, los socialistas españoles nos congratulamos por este informe de propia iniciativa sobre la situación penitenciaria en Europa. Y especialmente hemos apoyado el énfasis que pone en la reinserción y la resocialización de la población reclusa. Pero, precisamente en la votación final, hemos optado por abstenernos porque el apartado 29 de la Resolución, de manera indiscriminada y genérica y con un lenguaje duro, utiliza literalmente el verbo «condena» cuando se refiere a la política de distribución territorializada de los presos en todo el territorio nacional —lo que, con algún acento crítico, se conoce como política de dispersión o de alejamiento de presos—, como si eso infligiera un daño adicional y fuese incompatible con la resocialización. Todo lo contrario. Resulta que la resocialización es imposible cuando nos enfrentamos con la delincuencia organizada, la delincuencia que en Italia se llama de stampo mafioso, con la radicalización que produce el yihadismo y, lamentablemente, con la delincuencia terrorista —como hemos visto en España—, donde la dispersión territorializada de presos precisamente ayuda a la resocialización, y la concentración en una sola prisión produce el efecto contrario: la imposibilidad de la resocialización, la reeducación y la reinserción, precisamente porque se produce la radicalización de la población reclusa, dentro de las propias cárceles.

Es por esto que creemos necesaria esta explicación de voto en la votación final al haber sido imposible votar singularizada y separadamente el apartado 29.

  Przewodniczący. – Niniejszym zamykam wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania.