Deconstructing the Issue of Special Privileges in Correctional Institutions

Recent media reports of convicted corrupt judge Hu Ching-pin enjoying preferential treatment in an outlying prison and being quickly released on parole, as well as sex offender Li Tsung-jui using financial support from his mother to recruit inmates and become an unlicensed prison handyman while living a lifestyle inconsistent with his status as a Level 4 inmate (the lowest tier) under the progressive execution system, have sparked public skepticism regarding special privileges in prisons. Relevant correctional institutions should thoroughly investigate these alleged cases of special privileges to determine whether any abuse of power exists.

However, the existence of special privileges within prisons should not be viewed merely as isolated incidents; there are systemic reasons:

Lack of Transparency in Correctional Conditions

Although prisons have gradually opened up compared to the past, it is still not enough. To this day, many regulations concerning inmates in correctional institutions are not publicly disclosed under the guise of administrative rules. Last year, Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 756 was issued, declaring the practice of censoring inmate correspondence unconstitutional. The catalyst for this interpretation was that death row exoneration seeker Chiou Ho-shun wrote a memoir mentioning that prison officials at the Taipei Detention Center had engaged in lawless activities such as drug trafficking, and his letters were intercepted by the prison administration. Even after this interpretation was issued, Chiou Ho-shun still reported that he was unable to write about conditions inside the prison.

If conditions in correctional institutions were fully transparent, anyone enjoying special privileges would be exposed immediately, and who would dare to do so? Therefore, keeping channels for inmates to speak out open, protecting whistleblowers, and establishing external oversight mechanisms can significantly ameliorate this problem.

Excessive Discretionary Power in Regulations

The issue of special privileges is particularly prone to arising when regulations grant prison authorities broad discretionary powers. While management certainly requires some leeway, such discretion must still be subject to review. For example, special visits, the selection of inmates for outlying prisons, job assignments and arrangements, and prison transfers are all common areas where problems easily arise. Excessive discretion is not only related to special privileges, but may also be abused to persecute individuals. Another mechanism easily used for persecution is punishing inmates for "disobeying discipline" under various self-imposed behavioral rules that have not been made public.

To improve this problem, a comprehensive review of various regulations must first be conducted to make rules clear. Furthermore, decisions on individual cases should state reasons so that they can be reviewed and appealed.

Inhuman Regulations or Measures

If anyone is interested in understanding the current forms of special privileges in correctional institutions, they can refer to the Control Yuan Investigation Report 104 Judicial Investigation 0017, which is the closest public official document to date recording various forms of internal prison privileges. A close examination reveals that so-called "exercising special privileges" is sometimes merely an attempt to secure living conditions that meet human dignity and basic needs. For instance, using public hair clippers caused scalp ringworm infections, prompting a desire to use personal hair clippers; hence, someone was asked to smuggle in a personal electric hair clipper. This was clearly a health necessity, yet it had to be satisfied through smuggling contraband.

Moreover, in the episode involving Li Tsung-jui exercising special privileges, because he is currently a Level 4 inmate under the progressive execution system (the lowest tier), he is only permitted family visits and delivered food once a week, and is barred from possessing a handheld television; thus, he had a qualified peer receive them on his behalf. But upon critical review, the current practice of the progressive execution system is that inmates are not treated as human beings at first, their various rights are stripped away, and these rights are only gradually restored—this is the real core of the problem.

If everyone were treated equally from the outset and inmates were treated in a humane manner, no one would need to resort to such pathetic privileges.

※ This article was published in the Apple Daily on January 24, 2018