Prisons, prisoners and disaster

Prisons, prisoners and disaster

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 1 (2012) 33–43 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect International Journal of Disaster...

211KB Sizes 92 Downloads 511 Views

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 1 (2012) 33–43

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

Prisons, prisoners and disaster J.C. Gaillard a,n, Fanny Navizet b a b

School of Environment, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand ´ographie Alpine, Universite´ de Grenoble, France Institut de Ge

a r t i c l e i n f o

abstract

Article history: Received 23 March 2012 Received in revised form 9 May 2012 Accepted 10 May 2012 Available online 25 May 2012

To date, the fate of prisons and prisoners in disaster has stirred very limited attention from both scholars and policy makers. However, anecdotic evidences suggest that both prisons and prisoners are particularly affected by disastrous events associated with external natural and other hazards. In fact, the spatial, social and political forms of exclusion and marginalisation associated with imprisonment coincide with factors which make some places and people more vulnerable. This study explores those linkages between imprisonment, marginality and vulnerability to natural and other hazards around three axes: (1) a spatial form of marginalisation through the geographical, potentially hazardous, location of prisons and their secluded nature which isolates them from the outside world and assistance in facing hazards; (2) a social form of marginalisation which deprives already impoverished prisoners from further access to economic opportunities, health resources and interpersonal relationship which have all proved critical drivers of people’s vulnerability; (3) a political form of marginalisation which includes limited resources made available by the state and its agencies leading to poor, potentially vulnerable, and overcrowded facilities, along with prison’s lack of visibility in governmental disaster-related policies. This study draws upon a scoping study conducted in three prisons in France completed with sparse evidences available from the academic literature, government reports and media accounts. It further suggests ways forward for better integrating prisons and prisoners in disaster risk reduction policies. & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Prison Prisoner Marginalisation Hazard Disaster

1. A gap in science, policy and practice The present paper aims at raising issues regarding prisons and prisoners in disaster. It emphasises the particular vulnerability of prisons and prisoners in facing natural and other hazards, thus leading to possible disasters. It further suggests that disaster risk reduction (DRR) policies and practice should consider carefully those issues to ensure the safety of prisoners confronted to natural and other hazards.

n

Corresponding author. Tel.: þ64 9 923 9679; fax: þ64 9 373 7434. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.C. Gaillard).

2212-4209/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2012.05.001

So far it seems that neither the field of prison studies nor that of disaster studies have dedicated much attention to the fate of prisons and prisoners in disaster. Inferences can only be made from public health research. Some studies have indeed investigated the impact of epidemics and pandemics in prisons and the particular vulnerability of prisoners in facing those hazards [1–4]. Most concord to conclude that prisoners are very vulnerable to health hazards because they lack access to health care. Such deprivation result from prisons being often marginalised in public health policies and in allocation of government resources. Disaster-related policies and practice mirror the poor interest of international and national institutions to prisons and prisoners. The Hyogo Framework for Action

34

J.C. Gaillard, F. Navizet / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 1 (2012) 33–43

(HFA), which is the international blue print document for DRR signed by 168 nations in 2005, and its mid-term review in 2011, make no mention at all to carceral facilities and inmates [5,6]. The latest Global Assessment Report of the United Nations [7] and the recent joint report of The World Bank and United Nations [8] entitled ‘Natural hazards, unnatural disasters’, which both provide a scientific rationale for DRR policies amongst international organisations and national governments are similarly silent on the issue. Yet, anecdotic evidences suggest that prisons and prisoners are particularly affected by disasters. In December 2004, two prisons in Meulaboh and Banda Aceh, Indonesia, were swept by the Indian Ocean tsunami. Around 500 inmates died in each jail and only one warden survived in Banda Aceh [9]. In New Orleans, USA, Human Rights Watch [10] reported that it took 4 days for the authorities to evacuate 600 prisoners of the Orleans Parish Prison who had been abandoned by most wardens when flood water rose in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in August 2005 see also [11–14]. In Haiti, the Prison Civile of Port au Prince collapsed during the January 2010 earthquake. Six prisoners were killed and 4000 were able to break free [15,16]. In Southern France, two severe flooding episodes in 2003 and 2010 badly affected two carceral facilities and forced the unplanned evacuation of hundreds of inmates in Arles and Draguignan [17,18]. Similar stories have recently been reported in Thailand [19], Trinidad and Tobago [20], the Philippines [21–23] and again in the US [24–26]. There is obviously a gap between the impact of disasters on prisons and prisoners and the lack of attention it has been receiving from science, policy and practice. It is the intention of this study to initiate conceptual reflection and raise awareness in order to encourage more studies from scholars with expertise on both prisons and disasters. It primarily draws upon a recent scoping study conducted among three prisons of Southern France threatened by an array of external natural and other hazards. It purposefully excludes extensive discussion on in-prison issues such as cell fire, suicides, riots, physical violence and sexual assaults, which have already been widely covered in the larger literature on imprisonment (see [27–29] for overviews and further references). 2. Imprisonment, marginality and vulnerability Prisons are ‘‘segregative institutions designed to punish, typically for criminal offences. Prisons are usually strictly regulated and tightly surveyed environments, to which offenders are confined for varying lengths of time, and sometimes for life’’ [30]. Prisons as we know them nowadays appeared in Western Europe in the late 1700s after Bentham’s idea of the panopticon [31]. They have eventually evolved into modern days fortresses designed to confine thousands of inmates in highly secured and monitored facilities [32]. Our understanding of imprisonment owes much to Foucault’s [31] pioneer treaty on how Western states have used prisons to discipline and punish. Historically,

incarceration has long been designed to absorb and ‘discipline’ a growing number of urban poor upon whom modern states want to exert a strong control [32–35]. For such, imprisonment has been organised around three critical principles [31]: (1) isolation from the outside and from other inmates to protect prisoners from negative influences; (2) carceral work, which entails the strict respect of daily timetable, to transform prisoners in better individuals; and (3) penalties should be individual and flexible to accommodate potential transformation in prisoners’ behaviour. Prisons are therefore places of exclusion at the margin of the society. They are secluded territorial entities which gather those people who are banished from social life for the crime they have committed. Imprisonment is therefore a spatial and social form of punishment [30]. In that sense imprisonment also reflects the ultimate exertion of power by the state upon its citizens and an extreme form of purposeful political marginalisation [31–33]. The power of the state and its agents thus opposes to the powerlessness of the prisoners [36]. In prison, inmates are deprived of all sorts of goods, benefits and services available to regular citizens of the state, including freedom of actions, choice of amenities, social relationships, etc. Imprisonment therefore rimes with marginalisation [27]. It reflects pain, deprivation, inequality of power and social compression [36]. Those issues of marginalisation and deprivation strongly resonate to whoever interested in the study of disasters. Indeed, marginal places as well as marginal people within the society are often those who suffer most when hit by natural and other hazards [37,38]. In most cases, marginality leads to vulnerability which reflects the susceptibility to suffer in the event of a potential harmful phenomenon. The marginality–vulnerability nexus revolves around the ability of those at the margin of the society to live in hazardsafe areas and to access means of protection which are available to those with more power [39–41]. Marginalisation is therefore a matter of poverty but not exclusively. Obviously, limited financial resources prevent people from choosing where to settle, especially where hazard-free areas are expensive. Poor people are also unable to afford protection measures, although these are often available locally, because they have to prioritise short-term daily needs over rare or seasonal natural and other hazards [42–44]. Vulnerable people also include those who are socially and culturally excluded from dominant development policies and DRR activities. These encompass all neglected segments of society, often including children, elderly, women, gender minorities, people with disabilities, refugees, prisoners, homeless people and ethnic minorities. Many are physically fragile, unable to move easily and dependant on the decisions of others in the face of hazards—frequently because all aspects of society do not factor in their special needs. Therefore, vulnerability to natural and other hazards ultimately mirrors deep-seated social, economic and political structures which lie beyond the reach of those who prove vulnerable [45]. The spatial, social and political forms of exclusion and marginalisation reflected in imprisonment therefore

J.C. Gaillard, F. Navizet / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 1 (2012) 33–43

coincide with those factors which make some places and people more vulnerable than others to natural and other hazards. Often indeed prisons and prisoners display evidences of vulnerability, which reflect their position in the society. It is therefore our intention to explore linkages between imprisonment (including prisons and prisoners), marginality and vulnerability to natural and other hazards around three axes: – a spatial form of marginalisation through the geographical, potentially hazardous, location of prisons and their secluded nature which isolates them from the outside world and assistance in facing hazards; – a social form of marginalisation which deprives already impoverished prisoners from further access to economic opportunities, health resources and interpersonal relationship which have all proved critical drivers of people’s vulnerability; – a political form of marginalisation which includes limited resources made available by the state and its agencies leading to poor, potentially vulnerable, and overcrowded facilities, along with prison’s lack of visibility in governmental disaster-related policies. The subsequent sections investigate those three potential linkages based upon a scoping study conducted in France completed with sparse evidences available from the literature, government reports and media accounts.

3. Scoping investigations The present study draws mainly upon scoping investigations conducted among three prisons of Southern France. Interviewees have requested not to disclose the exact location and name of those prisons for security and social reasons. They fear that emphasising institutional shortcomings in the carceral system may expose the administration of these prisons and the wardens to security threats and punishments from the state authorities. We have decided to honour this request. Prisons investigated as part of this study have been built between the early 1970s and early 1990s. They reflect the neoliberal industry of crime control which has led to a surge in the number of prisons in most countries in the world, especially in the West, over the last 40 years [32,33,46–48]. They have been built in periphery of major urban centres, either along the rural outskirt or a bit farther away in the countryside. Such location pattern has been observed for many other prisons during the same period in France [49,50]. They are middle-size facilities meant to accommodate between 200 and 400 inmates in 9 m2 cells. These carceral centres provide prisoners with a range of training programmes which vary in number and diversity. These prisons are exposed to flooding, earthquake, heat and cold waves, wildfire, dam break and an array of technological hazards. The study relies on a series of ten interviews with key informants from the justice and carceral institutions directly involved in the management and operation of prisons under focus. Interviewees include a prosecutor,

35

three wardens, two teachers and trainers, a counsellor, a nurse, a municipal planner and the mayor of the town which hosts one of the prisons. Interviews were conducted face to face or through phone calls between April and May 2011. They were difficult to set up as most informants proved reluctant to talk about issues pertaining to the carceral administration and its potential shortcomings. In addition, diverse government agencies and senatorial as well as European reports on the state of the French prisons have also been collected. All these data have been confronted to the large academic literature on imprisonment and the sparse media accounts on disasters in prison. Unfortunately, no prisoners were interviewed as part of this scoping study. Indeed, the French law prevents to interview inmates when the researcher is not a relative or recognised friend. This is a significant bias to the present work. The forthcoming sections however provide significant initial insights on the vulnerability of prisons and prisoners in facing natural and other hazards. They draw upon the three forms of linkages between imprisonment, marginality and vulnerability suggested in the foregoing section. 4. Prisons as marginal and vulnerable places 4.1. Geographical location and hazards The location of the prisons is a significant anchoring point for studying the linkages between imprisonment, marginality and vulnerability to hazards. In search of space for building large carceral facilities, especially since the 1970s, state authorities have privileged places of less social visibility which are also often those of less social and economic value [49,50]. A prosecutor interviewed as part of this study emphasised that jails are indeed often erected on cheap tracts of land. To justify their choice, policy makers have argued that prisons provide jobs and taxes to previously neglected peri-urban or rural areas [51–54]. If sometimes, these have gained support from local residents [55], new prisons also have often met strong resistance from local communities which have proved reluctant to welcome usually ugly infrastructure and its population of negative reputation [50,56]. In that context, prisons have frequently been located in marginal geographical areas where less attention was given to local opposition and social and environmental issues. These often prove hazard-prone. This is the case for the prisons under scrutiny here. One is located in the periphery of the village which serves as the centre of the host municipality. The area is swampy and at the midst of a flood plain which has been severely flooded in 1440, at the end of the 17th century, then in 1752 and 1754. Nowadays, the river is bordered by levees which are meant to prevent further flooding [57]. In addition, the region is known for its seismicity [58] and hosts large dams and major chemical industrial facilities which pose serious technological hazards [57]. Another prison is also located in a flood plain, just beyond the dike which borders a major river [57]. The place is marginal, amongst former quarry sites converted into ponds and

36

J.C. Gaillard, F. Navizet / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 1 (2012) 33–43

lakes, at the border of the municipality. It is also located in an earthquake-prone area [58] and threatened by technological hazards associated with a very heavy traffic of commercial trucks, including some transporting hazardous chemicals, and dam breaks. Such a pattern of hazardous marginal locations for prisons is common in France and elsewhere in the world. In France, the prisons of Arles and Draguignan, flooded in 2003 and 2010 were built in 1984 and 1991 in peri-urban areas. In Mayotte, Indian Ocean, the local prison, built in 1995 a few kilometres away from the capital Dzaoudzi, is located in a recognised tsunami-prone area of the island [59]. In the Philippines, the San Mateo prison was opened in 2004, at a time when flood-prone areas in the city were well known. Yet, it got flooded and had to be evacuated in 2009, revealing the poor attention given to natural hazards in deciding where to locate carceral facilities. Among detention centres built much earlier, in 1901, the Louisiana State Penitentiary, which is the largest maximum-security prison in the US, is located in a rural area highly prone to flooding from the Mississippi River as demonstrated in 1997 and 2011 [24]. In Thailand, the Bang Kwang Central Prison, was constructed in the late 1920s in periphery of Bangkok along the Chao Phraya which led to massive flooding in 2011 [19]. 4.2. Prisons as secluded vulnerable places Beyond the location of the prison, it is important to consider that carceral facilities are secluded places which prove hardly accessible in the event of an emergency. As discussed earlier, it is the very nature of prisons to isolate prisoners from each other and from the outside world. This leads prisons to be confined environments, bordered by tall walls, barbed wires and which gates are highly secured to protect the facilities from both break away from the inside and aggressions from the outside. Within the prisons, inmates are locked up inside small cells, equipped with narrow windows, which entry is often controlled by a double security system (bars and door). Those multiple layers of security between the inside and outside are a critical issue both for allowing the prisoners to evacuate quickly in time of disaster, should they be allowed to do so under tight control, and for the emergency services to come in. Most of the respondents of this study acknowledged that evacuating a prison is problematic and would take much longer than for any usual buildings accommodating a lot of people. All outsiders, including police forces and fire marshals, need to be authorised before entering the prison. Authorisation entails an administrative procedure which takes time although prisons often hold a direct phone line with the fire marshals because of the frequency of cell fires. Afterward, getting into the prison requires going through a succession of gates, usually three, which take time to open and close before and behind people entering the facilities. Because time is precious in the event of an emergency [60], immediate rescue and first aid operations are therefore often undertaken by wardens who prove skilled but in possession of limited resources. A warden actually affirmed that it takes

ten minutes to evacuate 100 prisoners from an entire level which is a long time should there be a brutal dam break upstream. Elsewhere in France, the prisons of Arles and Draguignan proved very difficult to evacuate when they got flooded in 2003 and 2010. Inmates were evacuated from the ground floor towards the upper levels where they rubbed shoulders with relatives visiting some prisoners, thus leading to serious security concerns. Heavy logistics was then required for the prisoners to be evacuated by boat or helicopter under the supervision of the special elite security forces in charge of the prisons. A similar operation was required but with much less logistics when the prison of San Mateo, in the Philippines, was flooded up to the roof in late September 2009. In that case, however, after having initially been evacuated to the second floor, all prisoners had eventually had to be transferred to a nearby school, where no one allegedly attempted to escape in fear of being washed away by raging water [21]. In Bangkok, Thailand, in October 2011, difficulties for evacuating the prison which got severely flooded were compounded by the fact that many prisoners were forced to wear leg irons [19]. In New Orleans, US, hundreds of inmates from the Orleans Parish Prison were chaotically evacuated with small rescue boats onto a nearby overpass surrounded by water in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina in 2005 [11–14]. 5. Prisoners’ social marginalisation and vulnerability Prisons are places of social marginalisation. Many studies have shown that prisoners are disproportionally drawn from the poorest and minority segments of the society, be they members of minority ethnic minorities, immigrants, youth, elderly, drug users, people with mental disability, etc. [27,28,35,61,62]. When incarcerated, they therefore display many characteristics of the most vulnerable people [38]. Eventually, their situation worsens in prison thus making inmates even more vulnerable to natural and other hazards. 5.1. Poor health and physical fragility The poor health and physical fragility of the prisoners in the face of a wide array of hazards is the first symptom of social marginalisation in prison [2,3]. Issues here relate to both physical and mental health. The last nationwide survey conducted among French prisons back in 1997 [63] showed that one-third of those who get imprisoned in the country are regular users of drug substances and that 80% of them smoke, with no difference between men and women. In addition, 80% suffer from immediate dental problems. In the context of this study, a professor acknowledged that many of his trainees are in poor health. The last nationwide survey conducted among French prison also emphasised that one-fifth of the people sentenced to jail lack health insurance at the time of their imprisonment. Most of those who commit crimes and are sentenced jail penalties also suffer from psychological trouble beforehand and fall under the category of those disadvantaged

J.C. Gaillard, F. Navizet / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 1 (2012) 33–43

people, along the poor and ethnic minorities, whose risk to end up in jail is higher. In France, Mouquet et al. [63] affirmed that more than 20% of the prisoners relied on a regular basis upon psychotropic medication when getting into jail, and that the proportion was actually higher amongst females than males. A warden suggested that between 40% and 60% of the inmates he is in charge of may suffer from some sort of mental disorder and that these problems are not due to imprisonment in the first place. A nurse confirmed that assertion. Both physical and mental fragility combine to make prisoners very vulnerable in everyday life and ultimately in facing rare natural and other hazards [64,65]. Inmates’ health eventually often worsens in prison. Drug consumption is widespread although illegal [66], particularly in French prison [67]. Prisoners also tend to be more fragile in facing further health or other hazards as hygiene is often poor. Indeed, prison and imprisonment seem to convey some diseases more easily than they spread outside. Measles appear to be frequent health issues in prisons as mentioned by several interviews conducted among people working in carceral facilities. Health problems are also compounded by limited and often poorly maintained sanitary facilities. A government report on one of the prisons under scrutiny shows that in 2009 inmates were only allowed three showers a week in collective amenities which were decaying. Although general health and mental facilities and services are usually available in prison, it often seems difficult for prisoners to access those resources. A nurse explained that requesting medical assistance in prison requires going through a long and winding administrative procedure, including filling up forms which proves difficult for some illiterate inmates. Often, it also takes a long time for the prisoners to actually see a doctor, a dentist or any other medical practitioners.

5.2. Social isolation and vulnerability Incarceration is also meant to isolate prisoners and deprive them of social life [31]. In that sense, they lack social networks which have proved so important in facing natural and other hazards [45,68]. In France, convicts are intentionally imprisoned far from their home town which accentuates social isolation by loosening connection with relatives and friends [49]. Remoteness combined with the frequent rural location of carceral facilities, poorly connected to public transportation networks, which make regular visits very expensive [69]. Inmates confined in one of the prisons considered for this study can see their relatives 30 min thrice a week. However, many whose family lives far from the prison can only hope for an hour per month as their kin can hardly afford more frequent journeys. In addition, prisoners had to wait until early 2010 to get access to ten pay phone boots recently installed within the facilities. Another prison is located 5 km from the nearest train station, which forces relatives and friends to take an expensive taxi to get to the carceral facilities. The loosening of family ties and social bonds is therefore frequent in prison [70].

37

Amongst those imprisoned, it seems that female inmates get fewer visits than men prisoners [69] although they are those who prove more psychologically fragile when jailed [63]. This is of particular concern in the context of disasters which disproportionally strike women [71,72]. Female prisoners therefore seem particularly vulnerable in facing natural and other hazards because of their frail health status and loose social linkages which provide limited moral support. Isolation may also impact prisoners’ perception of the environment. A counsellor interviewed for this study suggested that imprisonment in a small cell limits prisoners’ field of vision, reduces risk perception and may impact their physical integrity. Isolation also compounds mental fragility and may result in suicides which are frequent in prison [29,73]. In France, Duthe´ et al. [74] show that the number of suicides in jail has dramatically increased over the last 50 years. Suicides rates are around eight times higher in prison that in the general population. The soaring rates of suicides in prison are a good indicator of the mental fragility of prisoners accentuated by social isolation [75]. It is of particular worry for the present study since mental health has also been pinpointed has a significant factor of vulnerability to hazards [76]. Social neglect and isolation is accentuated in prisons which host immigrants, political prisoners and those captured in armed conflicts. Immigrants may lack language skills to communicate with the wardens and express their daily needs or claim due rights. They further feel isolated by the lack of direct links with relatives who live abroad and with whom communication is expensive [70]. In France, 25% of those imprisoned are foreign nationals [67] as in the case of the tsunami-prone prison of Mayotte which mostly host poor illegal migrants from neighbouring Comoros. Political and conflict-related prisoners may intentionally be neglected because of their former activities against the government. For example, most of the prisoners who died during the late 2004 tsunami in Banda Aceh and Meulaboh, Indonesia, were rebels who were fighting the government and thus obviously of second priority for the authorities [9]. 5.3. Poverty and access to resources Worldwide, a large fraction of those who get imprisoned are poor [35,62]. In France, a senatorial survey conducted at the turn of the 21st century shows that 50% of the prisoners were actually jobless at the time of imprisonment [67]. Eventually, imprisonment often leads to further impoverishment [28,61]. In French prisons, this situation worsens as most government subsidies usually allocated to the poor stop behind the bars. The present study has not enabled to collect first-hand data pertaining to the particular background and social status of inmates accommodated in the three prisons under scrutiny. A government report however mentioned that in 2009 there were between 20 and 25 indigent inmates in one of these prisons. This confirms Hyest and Cabanel’s [67] report which estimated that 7% of the French carceral population felt under the category of

38

J.C. Gaillard, F. Navizet / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 1 (2012) 33–43

indigent inmates who are those who rely on less than 45 euro per month to sustain their daily needs. In addition, the poorest of the poor are further marginalised as they have to rely on regular carceral work to sustain their everyday needs, which excludes them from education and training programmes because those are usually offered simultaneously. Poverty also means that prisoners have limited educational background and restricted access to further knowledge while in prison as many educational programmes for inmates have proved of limited impact [77,78]. Although prisoners have access to television, press media and small library facilities in jail, a professor interviewed as part of this study admitted that many inmates suffer from a deficit of general knowledge and lack basic formal educational background. Many can hardly read and write. French government figures actually suggest that 15% of the carceral population is illiterate, which is significantly higher than the national average of 9% [79,80]. Educational programmes delivered in prisons are compulsory to inmates of less than 16 years old. Above that age, as indicated by the aforementioned professor, prisoners are only encouraged to attend classes and training courses. Access to resources which may assist prisoners in facing disasters such as general education, hazard-related information, basic hygienic goods, better health care, and communication with their relatives and friends is therefore inhibited by poverty and social marginalisation at large. As May et al. [16] emphasised in the case of Haiti, prisoners are deprived of options available to other people in the society who face the same threats, be they hunger, unsafe or unsanitary conditions, and/or natural hazards. In that context, they prove highly vulnerable. 6. Political marginalisation: allocation of resources and disaster risk reduction policies 6.1. Lack of resources, poorly maintained facilities and protection in facing hazards Prisons often lack appropriate resources to deal with an increasing number of people sentenced to jail [81]. This is despite the fact that some governments of affluent countries have increased their budget dedicated to carceral facilities over the past few decades [34,51]. In France, figures available from the Ministry of Justice show that the budget of the carceral administration has increased from 1.6 to 2.2 billion euro per year between 2005 and 2011. This proves insufficient [82]. In less affluent countries, the situation is critical as local resources are sparse and international support from development and aid agencies limited. May et al. [16] actually argue that ‘‘internationally, resources typically fail to reach prisons, in part because of the diminished value placed on prisoners’ lives’’. The most obvious symptom of insufficient resources allocated to prison is the permanent state of overcrowding of many carceral facilities throughout the world [83]. There is indeed no other alternative to accommodate an increasing number of people sentenced to prison penalties than to gather several of them in the same cell although official guidelines, like those of the United

Nations or the European Union, recommend that there be only one inmate per cell [84,85]. In Pasig City, Philippines, the small local prison is designed to accommodate 200 people. Yet, when it was severely flooded in late September 2009, there were 859 inmates who had to be evacuated to the second floor. Around 102 female prisoners had to crowd within two cells while 757 males had to be packed within four cells only. Living conditions were obviously extremely difficult [22]. In Haiti, although it was made to accommodate only 800 prisoners, there were more than 4200 inmates in the Prison Civile of Port of Prince at the time it collapsed in January 2010 [16]. Although one of the prisons considered for this study can officially accommodate 233 inmates in 224 cells its population was around 300 prisoners at the time of study—293 in October 2009 according to an official government report. A warden admitted that, at once, there were 480 prisoners in this prison. Wardens generally acknowledged that overcrowding would be an issue in time of emergency. It would obviously take longer to evacuate two inmates per cell than one. One of the interviewees also emphasised that in the possible event of an earthquakes those prisoners who share the same cell may find difficult to protect themselves from falling objects and structures. In fact, there is no table underneath which to cover up and sometimes only one doubledeck bed to provide protection. A disaster at the midst of the night would be of particular concern. At that time, all prisoners are locked up in their cells and wardens patrol on a sparse, although regular basis. It would thus take more time for the wardens to get to and open all cells. Overcrowding has a significant impact upon the maintenance of carceral facilities [83]. Sanitary conditions are often poor. In his report to the Council of Europe, a Commissioner for Human Rights stated: ‘‘Unsanitary cells, toilets and washing facilities in a bad state of repair, limits on the number of showers that prisoners are allowed to take each week, poor-quality bed linen and blankets—these were virtually constant features during our visit. It was difficult for me, in early 21st-century France, to hear prisoners complaining about the insufficient number of showers and the fact that they were not allowed to have a shower every day, even during the summer, when there are often periods of intense heat. The lack of measures to provide protection from heat was also mentioned on numerous occasions’’ [82]. In 2009, a government report similarly emphasised that one of the prisons under scrutiny suffers from rat, cockroach and insect infestations, notably because of the swampy nature of the area where the prison was built. Solitary confinement facilities were also said to be poorly maintained. A warden further emphasised in an interview that prisoners had to cope with heat waves, a significant natural hazard in prison, using wet towels. In addition to overcrowding and maintenance, limited resources may also affect the structural solidity of the prison facilities. Some are indeed constructed using substandard materials as in the case of the Prison Civile of Port au Prince, Haiti, which collapsed during the January 2010 [15]. Respecting building code and other safety standards remains an issue for prisons which often rank low in government priority expenditures.

J.C. Gaillard, F. Navizet / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 1 (2012) 33–43

In facing such a lack of resources from the state and other national or international organisations, prison authorities sometimes resort to carceral labour when confronted with hazardous events. In the US, inmates of the Louisiana State Penitentiary contributed to sandbagging when the Mississippi River threatened to flood the facilities in early 2012 [24]. Similarly, some inmates from the Orleans Parish Prison were recruited to put sandbags in their jail when it was hit by hurricane Katrina in 2005 [11–14]. In the Philippines, low security prisoners were required to organise raft shuttles from the gate of the prison to the cells for visitors when the facilities were flooded up to the waist in late September 2009 [22]. 6.2. Disaster risk reduction policies in prison The very particular and secluded nature of prisons as well as their high vulnerability to natural and other hazards emphasise the need for appropriate policies to reduce the risk of disaster. Unfortunately, recent disasters have shown that it is not always the case. For instance, Human Right Watch [10] reported that there was no evacuation plan for the Orleans Parish Prison at the time of hurricane Katrina, ‘‘even though the facility had been evacuated during floods in the 1990s’’ and albeit the US Department of Justice published only two months before the disaster a ‘‘Guide to preparing for and responding to prison emergencies’’ [86]. In France, prison emergency management falls under the administration of the national government through its de´partement (province) representative called pre´fet and the ministry of justice. The carceral administration is therefore totally independent from local government jurisdiction and policies. Contingency measures usually include gathering all prisoners in the open ground, waiting for prison vans to come up and transfer the inmates to other carceral facilities. Problems occur when neighbouring prisons are already overcrowded as it happened during the evacuation of the carceral facilities flooded in Arles in 2003. At that occasion, many prisoners had to be kept inside congested prison vans until flood water retreaded. In that scenario there is no other alternative as it is technically, for security reasons, and legally impossible to accommodate inmates in public gymnasium or schools as these are under the responsibility of the local government, not that of the national government as required in the case of prisons and prisoners. Should there be an evacuation in public facilities managed by the local government any problems would be the responsibility of the national government, a risk which authorities are obviously not willing to take. Contingency plans for French prisons are kept confidential amongst a certain number of key officials and institutions, including the pre´fet, the police, the head prosecutor and the director of the carceral facilities. A trainer interviewed for this study, actually emphasised that the prison where he works is totally isolated from the rest of the municipality and there is virtually no contact between the two institutions. Therefore, information related to emergency measures is neither shared with inmates nor with local authorities. Similarly, emergency

39

plans do not include drills and rehearsal exercises because there is a lack of trust in the prisoners’ ability to conduct such activities peacefully as reflected in one interview with a prosecutor. Conversely, local government activities for DRR, including the Plans de Pre´vention des Risques (PPR or hazard-based land-use recommendations), the Document d’Information Communal sur les Risques Majeurs (DICRIM—information campaign regarding natural and technological hazards) and the Plans Communaux de Sauvegarde (PCS or contingency plans) do not trickle into the prisons. Although the DICRIM includes the distribution of brochures and other information related to natural and technological hazards in the area, these stop at the gates of the carceral facilities. An official of the municipality which hosts one of the prisons under scrutiny admitted that she had never seen any representatives from the carceral administration come to her to discuss DRR policies or seek whatever information related to hazards and disasters. The French carceral administrative framework and decision making scheme follow a strict and rigid chain of command from the top down, which conflicts with good practices in DRR emphasising an integration of bottom-up and top-down initiatives [38,87]. A warden acknowledged in one of our interviews that they do what they are told to do and that taking initiatives at their level is strongly prohibited. The same warden further underlined the sense of hierarchy which predominates within the prison administration. In the event of any emergencies, wardens have to inform the director of the prison who, if needed, eventually requests assistance from the ´fet at the de´partement level. In addition, the director of pre a prison cannot instruct evacuation until he receives a formal order from the pre´fet who needs time to asses a situation which is remote to him/her. Then, it usually takes at least 30 min for the security forces to come up and evacuate the prisoners. Meanwhile, they are under the responsibility of the wardens. In the event of a major event, large contingents of special elite security forces have to come from only four stations located in Lille, Paris, Lyon and Marseille, which happened when the prison of Arles had to be evacuated in 2003 as floodwater affected the local carceral facilities. The shortcomings of this top-down and commandand-control framework are compounded by the lack of continuity in the management of carceral facilities. Directors of prison in France rotate on a 3–4 year basis. As a consequence they often lack knowledge about the context and local issues. A warden admitted that his present director was unaware of serious technological hazards in the area although these are considered as the most significant threat in the region and benefit from significant media and public attention. 7. Prisons, prisoners and our larger understanding of disasters The vulnerability of prisons and prisoners in facing natural and other hazards reflects their position within the society. As emphasised in the previous sections the spatial, social and political marginalisation of prisons and

40

J.C. Gaillard, F. Navizet / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 1 (2012) 33–43

prisoners in France and elsewhere in the world makes them particularly vulnerable. Imprisonment stresses stigmatisation and marginalisation rather than inclusion and integration [27], two fundamental principles of progressive DRR [38,87]. In that sense, the case of prisons and prisoners does not differ from other marginal places and groups in society. It coincides with the large portfolio of evidence available for slum areas [88,89], peripheral rural or mountainous regions [43,90], women [71,72] and other gender minorities [91,92], children [93,94], elderly [95,96], people with disabilities [97,98] and ethnic minorities [99,100], etc. This scoping study of prisons and prisoners in disaster further feeds the larger discourse on the importance of everyday life in understanding people’s vulnerability to natural and other hazards. All informants for this study recognised that the prime hazards for prisoners are neither natural nor technological in nature. The main threats for inmates are everyday in-prison hazards, i.e. health problems, cell fire, and physical violence and assaults. All of these have received significant attention in the particular literature on imprisonment [101]. Prisoners are vulnerable in facing those daily in-prison hazards for the same reasons which make them fragile to external, rare and extreme natural and technological hazards, i.e. physical fragility, social marginalisation and political neglect. Those in-prison daily hazards actually turn into resources for some inmates. As emphasised by several respondents, many do not hesitate to set their mattress or other belongings on fire to get the attention of wardens. In that sense, fire becomes a resource which often proves more valuable than hazardous in the mind of inmates. Therefore the attention of wardens and other carceral staffs is geared toward reducing the risk associated with these everyday hazards through regular training in first aid, fire fighting skills and psychological counselling. In addition, they are often confronted to actual cases which enhance their ability to respond to such events. Beyond these similarities there is one significant difference which distinguishes prisons and prisoners from other marginal places and groups in society. This is the deliberate and explicit deprivation of capacities for those put behind bars. Capacities refer to those, often endogenous, resources people possess to face hazards and disaster, including local knowledge, indigenous skills and technologies, traditional medicine and solidarity networks [45]. For all other social groups, these capacities serve as local buffer to largely externally-driven vulnerability. In the case of prisoners, such buffer does not exist. The thousand of them who were swept away in their cell by the late December 2004 tsunami in Aceh, Indonesia, had absolutely no chance to survive. Similarly the 600 inmates trapped under raising water without light, food, toilet facilities and air circulation in the Orleans Parish Prison of New Orleans in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina were lucky that rescue teams saw the t-shirts they set on fire hanging out of the windows [10–14]. High vulnerability combine with a lack of capacities in prisons often located in hazard-prone areas thus putting prisoners at extreme risk. Such a bleak story does not exclude any potential for action and ways forward though. In the Philippines, in

several instances, inmates imprisoned in hazard-safe areas have skipped meals and donate their ration to those affected by flooding in other regions of the country proving that prisoners may still display initiatives despite isolation [102,103]. In Dublin, the Irish Red Cross has been training prisoners to first aid and other health care. Those inmates have since become volunteer members of the organisation. They have been involved in in-prison activities dedicated to their fellow inmates and participated in designing their own plans to face health and sanitary hazards in collaboration with the carceral administration [104]. Those examples show that the principles of community-based DRR [105] may still be valid in the particular context of prisons and prisoners.

8. Perspectives for science, policy and practice The forgoing sections have provided an initial overview of issues associated with prisons and prisoners in disaster, with special reference to three prisons in Southern France. This study has emphasised the links between spatial, social and political marginalisation which affect prisons and prisoners and their vulnerability in facing natural and other hazards. Those initial evidences warrant further academic research as well as actions for policy and practice. (1) Each of the linkages between the different forms of marginalisation suffered by prisons and prisoners and their vulnerability to natural and other hazards should be critically investigated based on detailed case studies, which would hopefully involve prisoners along with other stakeholders of prison management and DRR. This is critical for better understanding the overall impact of imprisonment on vulnerability and capacities to face natural and other hazards. (2) Alternative initiatives, such as that of the Irish Red Cross [104], geared towards empowering prisoners in dealing with everyday health, violence, and fire threats and/or rare natural and other hazards should be identified and critically documented. Such a portfolio of good practices shall emphasise ways forward in improving inmates’ daily life and enhance their ability to face hazards. (3) There is also a need for assessing the impact of prisons on the vulnerability of neighbouring communities to natural and other hazards. This should include the effect on vulnerability of social dislocation and stigma amongst communities whose members are or have been in prison [70,106]. The impact of the financial burden entailed by imprisonment on the vulnerability of families and relatives of inmates needs to be investigated too. (4) Moving towards policy and practice, a right-based approach to understanding and facing disaster may provide avenues for better integrating prisons and prisoners in DRR. Such an approach has been explored in both disaster [107,108] and prison studies [109,110] with significant potentials for improving the life of both inmates and those affected by disasters. (5) Both DRR and carceral policies should consider the particular context of prisons and specific needs of

J.C. Gaillard, F. Navizet / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 1 (2012) 33–43

prisoners in designing appropriate measures to face natural and other hazards. Those actions should be crafted in the context of inmates’ daily problems and foster their participation as much as permitted by the law. DRR policies for prisons and prisoners should further be better integrated with local government policies and initiatives to reduce the risk of disasters.

[18]

[19] [20]

Completing this agenda would provide a better understanding of the particular vulnerability of the prisons and prisoners in facing natural and other hazards. It would also enable to identify available resources and ways forwards for better integrating prisons and prisoners in DRR policies. These seem essential to overcome the chronic marginality suffered by both carceral facilities and inmates in society and eventually pull them towards the centre in order to reduce the risk of disaster in prison.

[21] [22] [23] [24]

[25] [26]

References [1] Rieder JP, Gravier B, Bertrand D, Pasche C, Bodenmann P, Wolff H. Health in prison: shared vulnerability between detainees and health professionals. Revue Me´dicale Suisse 2010;257:1462–5. [2] Schwartz RD. The impact of correctional institutions on public health during a pandemic or emerging infection disaster. American Journal of Disaster Medicine 2008;3:165–70. [3] Fraser A, Gatherer A, Moller L. Social justice, public health and the vulnerable: health in prisons raises key public health issues. Public Health 2009;123:407–9. [4] van’t Hoff G, Fedosejeva R, Mihailescu L. Prisons’ preparedness for pandemic flu and the ethical issues. Public Health 2009;123: 422–5. [5] United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (2005) Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters, United Nations, Geneva, 2005. [6] United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters—Mid-term Review 2010–2011. United Nations, Geneva. [7] United Nations. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction: Revealing Risk, Redefining Development, 2011. Geneva: United Nations; 2011. [8] The World Bank. United Nations, Natural Hazards, Unnatural Disasters: The Economics of Effective Prevention. Washington: The World Bank; 2010. [9] Gaillard JC, Clave´ E, Kelman I. Wave of peace? Tsunami disaster diplomacy in Aceh, Indonesia Geoforum 2008;39:511–26. [10] Human Rights Watch, New Orleans: Prisoners Abandoned to Floodwaters, Human Rights Watch, New York, 2005. Available from: /http://www.hrw.org/news/2005/09/21/new-orleans-priso ners-abandoned-floodwatersS (accessed 17.02.2012). [11] Inglese D. No Ordinary Heroes: 8 Doctors, 30 Nurses, 7,000 Prisoners and a Category Five Hurricane. New York: Citadel Press Books; 2007. [12] American Civil Liberties Union. Abandoned and Abused: Orleans Parish Prisoners in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina. New York: American Civil Liberties Union; 2006. [13] Hoffman S. Preparing for disaster: protecting the most vulnerable in emergencies. University of California Davis Law Review 2009;42:1491–547. [14] Robbins IP. Lessons from hurricane Katrina: prison emergency preparedness as a constitutional imperative. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 2008;42:1–69. [15] Katz, N. Haiti Earthquake News: Main Prison Destroyed, 4,000 Prisoners Escape, CBS News 15 January 2010. Available from: / http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-6100169-504083. htmlS (accessed 19.02.2012). [16] May JP, Joseph P, Pape JW, Binswanger IA. Health care for prisoners in Haiti. Annals of Internal Medicine 2010;153:407–10. [17] Ducos, J.M. 193 de´tenus e´vacue´s de la prison d’Arles inonde´e. Le Parisien 6 December 2003. Available from: /http://www.lepari

[27] [28] [29] [30]

[31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

[37] [38] [39] [40] [41]

[42]

[43] [44] [45]

[46] [47] [48]

[49] [50] [51]

41

sien.fr/faits-divers/193-detenus-evacues-de-la-prison-d-arles-i nondee-06-12-2003-2004593017.phpS (accessed 25.04.2011). Agence France Presse, Intempe´ries: Evacuation des De´tenus de la prison de Draguignan Inonde´e, Le Point.fr, 2010. Available from: /http://www.lepoint.fr/societe/intemperies-evacuation-desdetenus-de-la-prison-de-draguignan-inondee-16-06-2010-467272_ 23.phpS (accessed 25.04.2011). MacKinnon I. Rising floodwaters force evacuation of notorious Bangkok jail. The Sydney Morning Herald October 2011;28. Simon A. 240 inmates moved as prison floods. Trinidad Express 2011;16. Kwok A. No deaths in San Mateo jail due to floods. Philippine Daily Inquirer 2011;1. Morella C. Inmates float on rafts at flooded Pasig prison. Philippine Daily Inquirer 2009;2. Felipe CS. BJMP seeks transfer of San Mateo jail. The Philippine Star 2011;3. Wilson, S. Angola Prison Braces for its Worst Flooding Threat. Fox 8 News 5 May 2011. Available from: /http://www.fox8live.com/ news/local/story/Angola-prison-braces-for-its-worst-floodingthreat/V5OTVe1ldEuYQPpYpfNLSg.cspxS (accessed 19.02.2011). Hottle M. Oregon State Penitentiary resumes operations after flood threat. The Oregonian 2012;21. Rison RH, Wittenberg PM. Disaster theory: avoiding crisis in a prison environment. Federal Probation 1994;58:45–50. Jewkes Y, editor. Portland: Willan Publishing; 2007. Combessie J. Sociologie de la Prison. Paris: La De´couverte; 2009. Arjen Boin R, van Duin MJ. Prison riots as organizational failures: a managerial perspective. The Prison Journal 1995 : [29].;75 357–179. Gregory D, Johnston R, Pratt G, Watts MJ, Whatmore S. The Dictionary of Human Geography. Fifth ed.Chichester: WileyBlackwell; 2009. Foucault M. Surveiller et Punir: Naissance de la Prison.Paris: Gallimard; 1975. Christie N. Crime Control as Industry: Towards Gulags, Western Style.New York: Routledge; 2000. Davis AY. Are Prisons Obsolete? New York: Seven Stories Press; 2003. Sim J. Punishment and Prisons: Power and the Carceral State.London: Sage; 2009. Wacquant L. Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity.Durham: Duke University Press; 2009. Crewe B. The sociology of imprisonment. In: Jewkes Y, editor. Handbook on Prisons. Portland: Willan Publishing; 2007. p. 123–52. Wisner B. Disaster vulnerability: scale, power, and daily life. Geojournal 1993;30:127–40. Wisner B, Gaillard JC, Kelman I, editors. London: Routledge; 2012. Wisner, B. The Human Ecology of Drought in Eastern Kenya, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Clark University, Worcester, 1978. Blaikie P, Brookfield H. Land Degradation and Society.London: Methuen; 1987. Hewitt K. Preventable disasters: addressing social vulnerability, institutional risk, and civil ethics. Geographische Rundschau International Edition 2007;3:43–52. Baird A, O’Keefe P, Westgate K, Wisner B. Towards an Explanation and Reduction of Disaster Proneness, Occasional paper No. 11, Disaster Research Unit.Bradford: University of Bradford; 1975. Blaikie P. The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries.New York: Longman; 1985. Maskrey A. Disaster Mitigation: A Community Based Approach, Development guidelines No. 3. Oxford: Oxfam; 1989. Gaillard JC. Vulnerability, capacity, and resilience: perspectives for climate and development policy. Journal of International Development 2010;22:218–32. Gilmore RW. Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition in Globalizing California.Berkeley: University of California Press; 2007. Peck J. Geography and public policy: mapping the penal state. Progress in Human Geography 2003;27:222–32. King RD. Imprisonment: some international comparisons and the need to revisit panopticism. In: Jewkes Y, editor. Handbook on Prisons. Portland: Willan Publishing; 2007. p. 95–122. J. Combessie, Prisons des Villes et des Campagnes: Etude d’Ecologie Sociale, Les E´ditions de l’Atelier/Les E´ditions ouvrie res, Paris, 1996. Combessie J. Marking the carceral boundary: penal stigma in the long shadow of the prison. Ethnography 2002;3:535–55. Gilmore RW. Globalisation and US prison growth: from military Keynesianism to post-Keynesian militarism. Race & Class 1999 171–88.

42

J.C. Gaillard, F. Navizet / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 1 (2012) 33–43

[52] Hooks G, Mosher C, Rotolo T, Lobao L. The prison industry: carceral expansion and employment in U.S. counties, 1969– 1994. Social Science Quarterly 2004;85:37–57. [53] Martin LL, Mitchelson ML. Geographies of detention and imprisonment: interrogating spatial practices of confinement, discipline, law, and state power. Geography Compass 2009;3:459–77. [54] Mitchelson ML. The urban geography of prisons: mapping the city’s other gated community. Urban Geography 2012;33:147–57. [55] Engel MR. When a Prison Comes to Town: Siting, Location, and Perceived Impacts of Correctional Facilities in the Midwest, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 2007. [56] Che D. Constructing a prison in the forest: conflicts over nature, paradise, and identity. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 2005;95:809–31. [57] Institut des Risques Majeurs, Ma Commune face aux Risques, Institut des Risques Majeurs, Grenoble, 2012. Available from: /http://www.irma-grenoble.com/04risques_rhone_alpes/00com muneRA_index.phpS (accessed 20.02.2012). [58] Marin S, Avouac J-P, Nicolas M, Schlupp A. A probabilistic approach to seismic hazard in metropolitan France. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2004;94:2137–63. [59] Sahal, A. Le Risque Tsunami en France: Contributions Me´thodologiques pour une Evaluation Inte´gre´e par Sce´narios de Risque, Unpublished PhD thesis, Universite´ Paris 1 Panthe´on-Sorbonne, Paris, 2011. [60] Alexander D. Principles of Emergency Planning and Management.New York: Oxford University Press; 2002. [61] Marchetti A-M. Carceral impoverishment: class inequality in the French penitentiary. Ethnography 2002;3:416–34. [62] Pettit B, Western B. Mass imprisonment and the life course: race and class inequality in U.S. incarceration. American Sociological Review 2004;69:151–69. [63] Mouquet M-C, Dumont M, Bonnevie M-C. La sante´ a l’entre´e en prison: un cumul des facteurs de risque. Etudes et Re´sultats de la Direction de la Recherche, de l’Etude, de l’Evaluation et des Statistiques 2008;4:1–10. [64] Few R, Matthies F, editors. London: Earthscan; 2006. [65] Keim M, Abrahams J. Health and disaster. In: Wisner B, Gaillard JC, Kelman I, editors. Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction. London: Routledge; 2012. p. 530–42. [66] Wheatley M. Drugs in Prison. In: Jewkes Y, editor. Handbook on Prisons. Portland: Willan Publishing; 2007. p. 399–422. [67] Hyest, J.-J. Cabanel, G.-P. Les Conditions de De´tention dans les Etablissements Pe´nitentiaires en France, Rapport de commission d’enquˆete No. 449, Se´nat, Paris, 2000. [68] Davis I, Haghebeart B, Peppiatt D. Social Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis, Discussion Paper and Workshop Report, ProVention Consortium, Geneva, 2004. [69] Le Contrˆoleur ge´ne´ral des lieux de privation de liberte´, Rapport d’Activite´ 2010, E´ditions Dalloz, Paris, 2011. [70] Mills A, Codd H. Prisoners’ families. In: Jewkes Y, editor. Handbook on Prisons. Portland: Willan Publishing; 2007. p. 672–95. [71] Enarson E, Morrow BH. The Gendered Terrain of Disaster: Through Women’s Eyes.Westport: Praeger; 1998. [72] Fordham M. Gender, sexuality and disaster. In: Wisner B, Gaillard JC, Kelman I, editors. Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction. London: Routledge; 2012. p. 424–35. [73] Fazel S, Cartwright J, Norman-Nott A, Hawton K. Suicide in prisoners: a systematic review of risk factors. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2008;69:1721–31. [74] Duthe´ G, Hazard A, Kensey A, Pan Ke´ Shon J-L. Suicide en prison: la France compare´e a ses voisins europe´ens. Population et Socie´te´ 2009;462:1–4. [75] Liebling A. Prison suicide and its prevention. In: Jewkes Y, editor. Handbook on Prisons. Portland: Willan Publishing; 2007. p. 423–46. [76] Few R. Health and climatic hazards: framing social research on vulnerability, response and adaptation. Global Environmental Change 2007;17:281–95. [77] Collins M. Prison education: a substantial metaphor for adult education practice. Adult Education Quarterly 1988;38:101–10. [78] Ubah CBA, Robinson Jr. RL. A grounded look at the debate over prison-based education: optimistic theory versus pessimistic worldview. The Prison Journal 2003;83:115–29. [79] Agence Nationale de Lutte contre l’Illetrisme, Illettrisme: Les Chiffres, Agence Nationale de Lutte contre l’Illetrisme, Lyon, 2012. [80] Ministe re de la Justice et des Liberte´s, La Formation et l’Enseignement: Pre´sentation de l’Enseignement et la Formation Professionnelle a

[81] [82]

[83] [84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88]

[89] [90]

[91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]

[97] [98] [99]

[100]

[101]

[102] [103] [104]

l’Administration Pe´nitentiaire, Ministe re de la Justice et des Liberte´s, Paris, 2012. Available from: /http://www.justice.gouv.fr/prison-e t-reinsertion-10036/la-vie-en-detention-10039/la-formation-et-le nseignement-12000.htmlS (accessed 23.02.2012). Coyle A. Managing Prisons in a Time of Change.London: International Centre for Prison Studies; 2002. Gil-Robles, A. Report by Mr Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, on the Effective Respect for Human Rights in France Following his Visit from 5 to 21 September 2005 for the Attention of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe—Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights, Strasbourg, 2006. International Centre for Prison Studies, Dealing with Prison Overcrowding, Guidance Note No. 4, King’s College London, London, 2004. Council of Europe—Committee of Ministers. Recommendation Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the European Prison Rules.Strasbourg: Council of Europe— Committee of Ministers; 2006. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, United Nations PrisonRelated Standards and Norms, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, New York, 2012. Available from: /http://www.unodc. org/newsletter/pt/perspectives/no02/page004a.htmlS (accessed 28.02.2012). Schwartz JA, Barry CA. Guide to Preparing for and Responding to Prison Emergencies, U.S. Department of Justice—National Institute of Corrections, Washington, 2005. Gaillard JC, Mercer J. From knowledge to action: bridging gaps in disaster risk reduction, Progress in Human Geography, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309132512446717, in press. Torry WI. Urban earthquake hazard in developing countries: squatter settlements and the outlook for Turkey. Urban Ecology 1980;4:317–27. Wisner B. The reconstruction of environmental rights in urban South Africa. Geojournal 1995;23:259–84. Hewitt K. Risks and disasters in mountain lands. In: Messerli B, Ives D, editors. Mountains of the World: A Global Priority. New York: The Parthenon Pub. Corp.; 1997. p. 371–408. Pincha C. Understanding Gender Differential Impacts of Tsunami and Gender Mainstreaming Strategies in Tsunami Response in Tamil Nadu, India, Oxfam America, Boston, 2007. Gaillard JC. Integrating non-heterosexual groups into disaster risk reduction in the Philippines. In: Wisner B, Gaillard JC, Kelman I, editors. Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction. London: Routledge; 2012. p. 429. Delica ZG. Balancing vulnerability and capacity: women and children in the Philippines. In: Enarson E, Morrow BH, editors. The Gendered Terrain of Disaster: Through Women’s Eyes. Westport: Praeger; 1998. p. 110–3. Anderson WA. Bringing children into focus on the social science disaster research agenda. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 2005;23:159–75. Wells J. Protecting and Assisting Older People in Emergencies, Humanitarian Practice Network Paper No. 53.London: Overseas Development Institute; 2005. Ngo EB. Elderly people and disaster. In: Wisner B, Gaillard JC, Kelman I, editors. Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction. London: Routledge; 2012. p. 447–58. Parr AR. Disasters and disabled persons: an examination of the safety needs of a neglected minority. Disasters 1987;11:148–59. Fjord L, Manderson L. (Eds.), Anthropological perspectives on disasters and disability, Human Organization 68 (2009) 64–112. Bolin R. Race, class, ethnicity, and disaster vulnerability. In: Rodriguez H, Quarantelli EL, Dynes RR, editors. The Handbook of Disaster Research. New York: Springer; 2006. p. 113–29. Gaillard JC. Caste, ethnicity, religious affiliation and disasters. In: Wisner B, Gaillard JC, Kelman I, editors. Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction. London: Routledge; 2012. p. 459–69. Monahan J. The future of violence risk management. In: Tonry M, editor. The Future of Imprisonment. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004. p. 237–63. Israel DG. Mandaue inmates skip meal to help Manila flood victims, Philippine Daily Inquirer 30 September 2009. Philippine Star, Bataan Inmates, Guards Skip Meals for Sendong Victims, Philippine Star, 29 December 2011. Holland K. The Weathfield Prison Project in Ireland, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva, 2011. Available from: /http://www.ifrc.org/en/news-and-media/newsstories/europe-central-asia/ireland/the-wheatfield-prison-projectin-ireland/S (accessed 28.02.2012).

J.C. Gaillard, F. Navizet / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 1 (2012) 33–43

[105] Delica-Willison Z, Gaillard JC. Community action and disaster. In: Wisner B, Gaillard JC, Kelman I, editors. Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction. London: Routledge; 2012. p. 711–22. [106] Clear TR. Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse.New York: Oxford University Press; 2007. [107] Kent G. The human right to disaster mitigation and relief. Environmental Hazards 2001;3(3-4):137–8.

43

[108] Twigg J. The Right to Safety: Some Conceptual and Practical Issues, Aon Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre working paper No. 9, Aon Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre, London, 2001. [109] Tonry M, editor. The Future of Imprisonment. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004. [110] van Zyl Smit D. Prisonners’ rights. In: Jewkes Y, editor. Handbook on Prisons. Portland: Willan Publishing; 2007. p. 566–84.