Sexual crime and the experience of imprisonment nicholas blagden - Quickly download the ebook to nev
Sexual Crime and the Experience of Imprisonment Nicholas Blagden
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/sexual-crime-and-the-experience-of-imprisonment-nic holas-blagden/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
sexual crime and the experience of imprisonment sexual crime
edited by
Nicholas Blagden . Belinda Winder
Kerensa Hocken . Rebecca Lievesley
Phil Banyard . Helen Elliott
Sexual Crime
Series Editors
Belinda Winder
Nottingham Trent University
Nottingham, UK
Rebecca Lievesley Department of Psychology
Nottingham Trent University
Nottingham, UK
Helen Elliott
Nottingham Trent University
Nottingham, UK
Kerensa Hocken HMPPS
HMP Whatton
Nottingham, UK
Nicholas Blagden
Nottingham Trent University
Nottingham, UK
Phil Banyard
Nottingham Trent University
Nottingham, UK
Sexual Crime is an edited book series devised by a team at SOCAMRU led by Professor Belinda Winder in the Psychology Division at Nottingham Trent University.
It offers original contributions to specific avenues of research within the field of sexual crime with each volume drawing together a review of the literature from across disciplines, including cutting edge research and practice, original material from services and offenders themselves as well as future directions for research and practice.
These volumes will be highly relevant to clinical and forensic psychologists and therapists, offender managers and supervisors, social workers and those working in the field of rehabilitation. They will be a great source of insight for academics, researchers and students in these disciplines as well as criminologists and policy makers.
More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/15477
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Foreword
I am delighted and excited to introduce this important and much needed book about the experiences of imprisonment for people convicted of sexual offences written by international experts.
Ministry of Justice data indicates that the number of people imprisoned for sexual offences in England and Wales has grown from 4 per cent of (a much smaller) prison population in 1981 to 18 per cent in recent years. There are a number of reasons for this increase, not least a greater awareness and intolerance of sexual crime, an increase in internet-related offences and the prosecution of historic sexual offences.
People imprisoned for sexual offences are often vulnerable and set apart from the wider prison population often as a result of the abhorrence and fear felt by both staff and other prisoners to the crimes they have committed.
This particular area of work has been a consistent feature of much of my professional life; this text provides a welcome contribution to the development of knowledge on the subject using evidence from around the world.
For much of the last 30 years the body of knowledge about the reasons why people commit sexual offences has grown and continues to grow. Whilst we continue to develop this knowledge and what needs to be done to help people not to reoffend in the future, prison-based research has often focused on specialist treatment programmes. As the Governor of a
specialist treatment site for people with sexual convictions I know from my conversations with both staff and prisoners the importance of respectful and supportive staff prisoner relations. This is vital for the overall welfare of the prisoner whilst he/she is in custody and also in supporting his/her successful transition back to the community.
I hope that this book will help to develop strategy and thinking on the subject. Its eight chapters cover the link between desistance from sexual offending and the provision of a positive prison climate. Chapter 1 describes some practical ways of creating a rehabilitative culture in prisons, drawing on some research and experiences of prison culture generally. It suggests what else needs to be considered for those convicted of sexual offences. Chapter 2 focuses on the importance of a positive prison social climate in helping to facilitate personal and behavioural change to reduce reoffending. Chapter 3 considers the views of Canadian prisoners towards people who are actually or perceived to be convicted of sexual offences and how this impacts on the victimisation of this group in prison. Chapter 4 considers the attitude and approach of prison officers working in a prison for people with sexual convictions. It argues that there is a ‘moral barrier’ between prison staff and people convicted of sexual offences that has an impact on staff engagement. Chapter 5 explores how individuals with sexual convictions experience prison across three sites and how the prison environment is perceived as a different world, allowing for contemplation for changes in thinking and behaviour. Chapter 6 examines the recent research on the many personal and experiential benefits of voluntary prison-based peer-support programmes for people with sexual convictions, giving them the opportunity to earn ‘self-forgiveness’ and consequently to move away from harmful labels. Chapter 7 offers a service user’s perspective of life in two prisons and compares their personal experiences of two very different cultures. Finally Chap. 8 considers the impact of attitudes towards people convicted of sexual offences on legislation, rehabilitative outcomes and eventual reintegration process.
It is vital that we continue to learn about new and imaginative solutions to this growing problem and this book offers a useful and thoughtprovoking basis upon which to build and develop appropriate responses.
Nottingham, UK
Lynn Saunders OBE
Preface
This Series: Sexual Crime
This book series will offer original contributions to current books available on this fast-growing area of high public interest. Each volume will comprehensively engage with current literature and make efforts to access unpublished literature and data by key authors in the field. The series will also, by the end of each volume, suggest potential new directions for researchers and practitioners. These volumes are relevant not just to psychologists, criminologists, social workers, final-year undergraduate, postgraduate and doctoral students of all these areas but to practitioners and the general public with an interest in learning more about the topic. The aim is to create books that are readable, yet firmly anchored in a sound evidence base from both researchers and practitioners. The volumes will include therefore a robust synthesis of the literature, consideration of the theories relevant to each topic, a focus on projects that are relevant to the topic (with a summary of the research and evaluation of these), chapters focusing on the service user voice and a final summary chapter highlighting future possibilities and directions (as suggested by others in the field or by the authors themselves).
This Volume: Sexual Crime and the Experience of Imprisonment
Life for individuals with sexual convictions is not easy. They may have lost, or fear losing, the support of those who care for them. They will live in constant fear of being identified as a ‘sex offender’ in prison and the harsh consequences that can occur if that happens. It is important that such individuals receive the support and treatment they need so as to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. However, the evidence base for traditional sex offender treatment is contested, with few studies finding an effect for prison. This has led some to argue that there needs to be a greater understanding and exploration of individuals with sexual conviction experience of imprisonment. Given the potential impact climate and context could have on rehabilitative programmes, there is surprisingly little research on the experiences of individuals with sexual convictions in prison and how they perceive their environment. This text aims to redress this deficit to some degree. The volume begins with an exploration of the theoretical underpinnings of a rehabilitative prison climate and discusses some of the practical ways of creating rehabilitative cultures in prisons housing people convicted of sexual offences. The text then moves onto considering the role of prison climate in the desistance process and offers an international perspective on building prison culture and what this may mean for individuals with sexual convictions. The text then offers four empirical chapters which explore the experience of imprisonment and the impact on their rehabilitation. The chapters focus on the experience of stigmatisation, prison officers’ attitudes towards prisoners’ offences and their social identities as ‘sex offenders’ and the varied experience of ‘being’ in prisons exclusively for individuals with sexual convictions. The final empirical chapter discusses the specific benefits of peer support for individuals with sexual convictions, such as the chance to earn self-forgiveness, construct adaptive identities and consequently move away from harmful labels. The final chapters in the book consider the experience of imprisonment from the perspective of a service user; this unique position offers an insightful account of an individual’s journey through the prison system. Lastly, the book considers the importance
of attitudes towards individuals with sexual convictions and how they play a pivotal role at different levels of the criminal justice system, namely, the legislative level, the rehabilitative level and the reintegrative level.
Future Texts
This series is ongoing, with planned future volumes including experience of imprisonment, spirituality, intellectual functioning and problematic sexual arousal.
Nottingham, UK
Nicholas Blagden
Belinda Winder
Kerensa Hocken
Rebecca Lievesley
Phil Banyard
Helen Elliott
Ruth Mann, Georgia Barnett, George Box, Flora Fitzalan Howard, Oscar O’Mara, Rosie Travers, and Helen Wakeling
List of Contributors
Georgia Barnett Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service, London, UK
Nicholas Blagden Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
George Box Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service, London, UK
Jennifer Galouzis Corrective Services New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Craig A. Harper Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Flora Fitzalan Howard Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service, London, UK
Alice Ievins Prisons Research Centre, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK
Jake Jones Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Ruth Mann Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service, London, UK
Oscar O’Mara Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service, London, UK
Christian Perrin University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
Rosemary Ricciardelli Department of Sociology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada
Ryan Scrivens School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
Rosie Travers Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service, London, UK
Helen Wakeling Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service, London, UK
Jayson Ware Corrective Services New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Kirsten Wilson Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, London, UK
Table
Table
Table
List of Tables
1
Rehabilitative Culture in Prisons for People Convicted of Sexual Offending
Ruth Mann, Georgia Barnett, George Box, Flora Fitzalan Howard, Oscar O’Mara, Rosie Travers, and Helen Wakeling
Introduction
In this chapter we will describe and discuss some practical ways of creating rehabilitative cultures in prisons housing people convicted of sexual offences. Our interest in prison culture began in 2002 when we conducted a study of why some men in prison deny their sexual offending (Mann, Webster, Wakeling, & Keylock, 2013). Before we began that study, we expected to find individual psychological explanations for denial, such as shame, or family factors, such as family support for denial. These explanations certainly existed, but more notably we found that men talked about feeling unsafe, feeling stigmatised, and feeling
R. Mann (*) • G. Barnett • G. Box • F. F. Howard • O. O’Mara • R. Travers • H. Wakeling
Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service, London, UK
N. Blagden et al. (eds.), Sexual Crime and the Experience of Imprisonment, Sexual Crime, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04930-0_1
R. Mann et al.
humiliated by other people in prison and also by staff. The overall finding was that when men convicted of sexual offences felt psychologically and physically unsafe in prison, their personal resources were consumed by finding ways to feel safe, and denial of their offences was one useful way to reduce their anxiety.
This finding led us to consider these issues further (Mann, 2009) and to work with others similarly interested in the importance of context (e.g. Blagden, Winder, & Hames, 2016). Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS; formerly the National Offender Management Service) consequently adopted the concept of “rehabilitative culture” to describe the ideal prison climate for rehabilitative activities and programmes to flourish and have maximum benefit, and set the development of such cultures in prisons as its first commissioning priority (NOMS, 2014). The concept of prison rehabilitative culture was originally most firmly rooted in the relationships between staff and prisoners, but over time we have extended the concept by drawing on other areas of research into prisons and criminal justice. In particular, along with staff behaviours we will consider in this chapter the importance of procedural justice, the role of leadership, the nature of the physical environment, the value of peer mentoring, and the way in which security procedures are undertaken. These are all important aspects of rehabilitative culture, but there are many others. Most of the research on which we have drawn comes from the general prison or rehabilitation literature; where there are studies that are specific to people convicted of sexual offending we have made that clear.
What Makes a Prison Rehabilitative?
It is difficult for prisons to reduce reoffending (e.g. Cullen, Jonson, & Nagin, 2011 ). Most academics agree that imprisonment in itself has, at best, no effect on reoffending and several studies have shown that imprisonment increases reoffending. However, prisons are expected to reduce reoffending—by the public, by politicians, by the media, and by their own staff—and are repeatedly criticised when they fail to do so.
The rehabilitation literature in relation to changing offending behaviour is quite positive, with reasonable agreement that well-designed programmes can have a moderate and cost-effective impact on reoffending. However, a number of studies have shown that such programmes have greater impact when delivered in community settings rather than in prisons. The size of the effect for prison programmes is equivalent to about one prisoner in ten not reoffending compared to those who do not receive programmes. While this is a cost-effective outcome, it is not a large effect. Why is it hard to achieve noticeable outcomes on reoffending through rehabilitation efforts in custody? There are several possible explanations, which are not mutually exclusive. First, it is possible that the criminogenic effect of imprisonment is so strong that even excellent programmes cannot outweigh this negative effect. Imprisonment disrupts positive influences in a prisoner’s life, such as relational ties, employment, and citizenship activities. It labels a person as a criminal in a way which can affect personal identity as well as invite rejection from others who are more law-abiding. And because prisons are full of people who by definition have committed crime, often repeatedly, their subcultures are antisocial, characterised by criminal attitudes, physical domination of the weak by the strong, and respect for the criminal identity. While prison staff can be important positive influences on individual prisoners, the majority of a prisoner’s interactions will be with other prisoners away from the supervision of staff, and these interactions are likely to be more antisocial and more influential than briefer and fewer interactions with staff. In prisons with particularly lean staff structures, interactions between staff and prisoners can easily become limited to simple exchanges of information or responses to requests, rather than meaningful conversations.
Second, a prison is an artificial environment where many of the usual demands of life are altered or removed, being replaced by unusual demands (such as the constant fear of physical threat from others). Stephenson (2007) noted that a custodial regime appears to have innate weaknesses that diminish protective factors and increase risks. In particular, custody curtails decision-making and planning skills in those who require them the most. Furthermore, any learning which can be delivered is provided in such an abnormal environment that the subsequent application of this learning outside of the classroom or group room is extremely limited.
Third, prison staff can inadvertently or deliberately undermine attempts to provide rehabilitation in prison. For example, in our study of why prisoners convicted of sexual offences refused treatment, Mann et al. (2013) found that some prison staff undermined the value of treatment. This happened both overtly, by telling prisoners that therapy did not work, and covertly, by failing to provide a culture where men convicted of sexual offending felt safe enough to work on their offending.
Penal experts have offered suggestions about how prisons could become more effective at reducing reoffending. Losel (2007a), for example, suggested that prisons could be more effective if they provided cognitive-behavioural programmes on a larger scale, which were better targeted, and more strongly integrated with other services such as education and work training. He also called for improvements in institutional climate. Cullen, Jonson, and Eck (2012) proposed an eight-point plan for an “accountable” prison, emphasising like Losel the importance of interventions that are compliant with the Risk, Need and Responsivity (RNR) principles, calling for non-RNR interventions to be discontinued, building stronger links with the outside community, and strengthening staff’s sense of accountability and opportunity for changing peoples’ lives while they are in prison. Smith and Schwietzer (2012) adopted the term “Therapeutic Prison” to describe a custodial environment run on the basis of the principles of effective rehabilitation: clear goals, services carefully targeted to risk and need, and staff who practise the “Core Correctional Practices”: pro-social modelling, reinforcement of prosocial behaviour, skills building, cognitive restructuring of criminal attitudes, and open and respectful communication. Common to these articulations of accountable/therapeutic prisons are two main themes. One is the emphasis on the value of introducing effective “programming” (such as cognitive skills programmes) on a wider scale within prisons. The other is developing a whole-prison culture where staff believe and behave in ways that assist the rehabilitative goal. We therefore see a rehabilitative culture as one that supports involvement in formal programmes, but also a culture that enables identity change in its own right.
There is only a small literature into prison culture as it applies to prisons housing men convicted of sexual offending. Various studies by
Blagden, described in this book, have shown that prison culture has an important effect on how men participate in therapy, with a safe and decent culture freeing up “headspace” for men to focus on the future. In Germany, a study of four prisons housing men convicted of sexual offending found significant correlations between the extent to which the prisoners found the custodial staff to be supportive and the extent to which they felt able to participate in therapeutic programmes (Stasch, Yoon, Sauter, Hausam, & Dahle, 2018). These pioneering studies support our working hypothesis that a rehabilitative prison culture will boost the effect of therapy programmes.
Rehabilitative Relationships: Staff Skills and Behaviours
Rehabilitative culture is most strongly about the relationships between staff and prisoners. Historically, the relationship between prison staff and those in their care has been characterised by security and control. Within the probation setting, however, there has been a growing body of research showing that the content and quality of the contact between probation staff and the person under their supervision can have a direct impact on recidivism (Day, Hardcastle, & Birgden, 2012; Drake, 2011). This shift in focus on the type of relationship between staff and people within the criminal justice setting is now turning to the prison setting, where the quality of the relationships between front-line prison staff and the people in their care is now widely acknowledged to be the single most important factor in creating safe, decent, and rehabilitative prisons.
The Rehabilitative Prison Officer
Most studies exploring the skills and qualities of prison staff focus on stress, burnout, and job satisfaction. There is surprisingly little research into what makes a rehabilitative prison officer or a less rehabilitative one. The research that has been done identifies five broad characteristics:
R. Mann et al.
• Legitimate authority—attracting respect and compliance from colleagues and prisoners without needing to use threats or force (Crewe, Liebling, & Hulley, 2011).
• Respect—treating others with courtesy, even when dealing with people whose behaviour is challenging. Doing what you say you are going to do (Hulley, Liebling, & Crewe, 2012).
• Emotional and moral consciousness—acknowledging the difficult aspects of the job and being able to speak about them (Molleman & Van der Broek, 2014).
• Resilience—using task-focused coping and social support to manage the demands of the job; showing endurance (Cieslak, Korczynska, Strelau, & Kaczmarek, 2008).
• Rehabilitative approach —believing in the possibility of change and encouraging people to change. Staff who have a rehabilitation orientation believe, as their “guiding ideology”, that people in prison can change and become productive, non-criminal members of society (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2008 ). At a minimum, simply encouraging prisoners to take part in rehabilitative activity makes a difference. Molleman and Van der Broek ( 2014 ) found that the extent to which staff described themselves as having a motivational style with prisoners was significantly associated with prisoners’ positive perceptions of seven out of eight aspects of imprisonment including security, safety, rule enforcement, activity, autonomy, and expectations for the future. This was the case even taking other factors into account such as length of time in prison, cell sharing, and the prison regime.
Of particular interest to prison culture is the extent to which staff have a rehabilitation orientation. And yet this orientation does not just benefit prisoners. Staff with a rehabilitation orientation experience greater job and life satisfaction, lower burnout and absenteeism, greater organisational commitment, and willingness to go the extra mile (Lambert, Barton-Bellessa, & Hogan, 2014). They find their jobs more meaningful and feel safer at work, although for some this is linked with feeling under more pressure in relation to the amount of work they have (Molleman & Van der Broek, 2014).
Prison Officer Skills and Behaviours
Some staff go further than a rehabilitative orientation and want to be part of that change, believing that prison officers as well as treatment and education staff can make a difference. The best staff therefore not only have a rehabilitative orientation but also possess the skills to motivate and help people change. They give hope, encourage people to try different ways of living, and recognise efforts to change. Smith and Schweitzer (2012) adopted the term “the Therapeutic Prison” to describe a custodial environment run on the basis of the principles of effective rehabilitation: clear goals, services carefully targeted to risk and need, and staff who practise the “Core Correctional Practices”: pro-social modelling, reinforcement, skills building, cognitive restructuring, and open and respectful communication.
While the impact of these skills has not been carefully researched in prisons, there is good evidence that they are associated with reduced reoffending when used by probation or parole officers in the community (Bonta, Bourgon, Rugge, Gress, & Gutierrez, 2013; Robinson et al., 2012; Trotter, 1990, 1996, 2004, 2009). These studies have also demonstrated that core correctional skills can be taught, and in fact in most cases they need to be taught even though most criminal justice workers think that this is how they practise, because people’s self-evaluations are not necessarily accurate.
Based on this research, HMPPS conceived the Five Minute Intervention (FMI) Project (Webster & Kenny, 2015). The FMI Project trains prison custodial staff to find rehabilitative opportunities during everyday conversations. Specifically, staff are trained to use these interactions as opportunities to develop decision-making and planning skills for the people in their care. FMI officers are taught how to identify and respond to criminal thinking styles and criminal attitudes, and how to enhance the skills of decision-making, planning, and perspective-taking.
FMI specifically targets impulsivity, personal responsibility, and problem-solving—all known risk factors for sexual offending (Mann, Hanson, & Thornton, 2010). FMI also provides the opportunity for staff to discuss pro-crime attitudes when they become apparent in everyday
R. Mann et al.
prison interactions, to challenge these attitudes and to lead by example by presenting different possible viewpoints. With this approach FMI aims to improve the rehabilitative climate of the prison, whereby both prisoners and staff experience a “thinking culture” that encourages consequential thinking, problem-solving and reflection, and a sense of personal growth and greater mutual respect. FMI also seeks to develop for staff an increased rehabilitation orientation, sense of satisfaction in their work, sense of opportunity in their interactions with prisoners, and greater awareness of their potential for changing criminal behaviour. HMPPS has embedded FMI into routine staff training, highlighting the focus on developing the everyday skills and values of prison service staff, and qualitative research has described how FMI can have an extraordinary impact for both staff and people in prison (Tate, Blagden, & Mann, 2017; Webster & Kenny, 2015).
Procedural Justice: The Importance of Fairness in a Rehabilitative Culture
Securing the compliance of people in custody is essential if prisons are to be stable, ordered, and peaceful environments. Keeping staff and prisoners safe, protecting the well-being of people in custody, and helping them to desist from reoffending in the future are legal requirements or priorities for most prison services. A growing body of research is showing the degree to which prisoners perceive their treatment in prisons to be fair and just influences all of these outcomes.
Procedural justice theory argues that experiencing fair and just procedures (how people make decisions and apply policies, rather than what the outcome is) leads people to view the law and authority figures as more legitimate and brings greater compliance with, and commitment to obey, the law (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1990). The theory states that the opposite is also true; where procedural justice is lacking there will be less compliance, both immediately and into the future. Procedural justice involves four principles: voice, neutrality, respect, and trustworthiness (Tyler, 2008). People need to have the chance to tell their side of the story
and to feel that authority figures will sincerely consider this before making a decision. People need to see authority figures as neutral and principled decision-makers, who apply rules consistently and do not base their decisions on personal opinion or bias. People need to feel respected and treated courteously by authority figures, believe that their rights are considered equal to those of others and that their issues will be taken seriously. Finally, people need to see authority figures as having trustworthy motives, who are sincere and authentic, who listen and care and try to do what is right for everyone involved.
Extensive research has confirmed that procedurally just treatment is associated with higher outcome satisfaction ratings and decision acceptance, greater cooperation with, and confidence in, the criminal justice system, and more law-abiding behaviours (Casper, Tyler, & Fisher, 1988; Mazerolle, Bennett, Davis, Sargeant, & Manning, 2013; Paternoster, Brame, Bachman, & Sherman, 1997; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 2001; Tyler & Fagan, 2008; Tyler & Huo, 2002; Tyler, Sherman, Strang, Barnes, & Woods, 2007).
According to procedural justice theory, if prisoners perceive their treatment to be procedurally fair, adherence to rules, acceptance of and respect for staff authority, and less misconduct should follow. Studies from England, Slovenia, North America, and the Netherlands have consistently found a relationship between perceptions of unfair and unjust treatment and misconduct in custody. This relationship has been demonstrated for self-reported and officially reported misconduct (Reisig & Mesko, 2009), and includes misconduct in various forms from everyday rule-breaking to organised defiance and institutional resistance (Day, Brauer, & Butler, 2015). Incidences of disrespect or personal indignity have been identified as immediate triggers for violence (Butler & Maruna, 2009), and when prisoners’ grievances are dealt with in ways that might be perceived to be unjust (such as when responses were late, complaints were ignored, deemed irrelevant or not requiring action) this led to significantly higher rates of serious violence in subsequent months (Bierie, 2013). A recent longitudinal study (Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager, Eichelsheim, & Van der Lann, 2015) tested the causal relationship between procedural justice and institutional adjustment and compliance. Taking into account a person’s previous history of misbehaviour, the
R. Mann et al.
research team found that prisoners who perceived their treatment to be procedurally just reported less rule-breaking/misconduct three months later and they were also less often charged with violating prison rules. Procedural justice perceptions have also been linked to the mental health of people in prison. Prisoners who feel treated unfairly and disrespectfully are more depressed, distressed, and anxious (Gover, MacKenzie, & Armstrong, 2000; Liebling, Durie, Stiles, & Tait, 2005; Slotboom, Kruttschnitt, Bijleveld, & Menting, 2011). In the Netherlands, research by the Dutch Prison Project has demonstrated a causal relationship between more positive prisoner perceptions of procedural justice and significantly fewer mental health problems three months later (Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager, Eichelsheim, Van der Lann, & Nieuwbeerta, 2014). Additionally, the same project established a causal relationship between prisoner perceptions of procedural justice and reoffending outcomes 18 months following release (Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager, & Nieuwbeerta, 2016). A person who evaluated their treatment in prison as procedurally just (a score of four out of five on the Procedural Justice Scale used in that study) was 5.3 percentage points less likely to be reconvicted 18 months later than someone who rated their perceptions as neutral (a score of three on the scale). This supports the idea that procedural justice in the short term earns buy-in to the legitimacy of the law, and the keepers of the law, in the longer term.
The use of authority is pervasive in prisons, exercised in minor and major ways (when we are denied our liberty even minor interactions can take on great significance). Behaviours that embody the procedural justice principles are often present in the way prison staff interact with the people in their care. For example, offering people the chance to ask questions, tell their story, summarising what they have said, and taking what they say seriously are all indications of the voice principle. Using preferred names, making eye contact, saying please and thank you, showing up on time for meetings, and giving the right information at the right time are indications of respect. Explaining why decisions have been made, how the decision is consistent with the treatment of others, and considering strengths and positive behaviour equally alongside risks, concerns, or problems demonstrate neutrality. Trustworthy motives can be demonstrated by explaining
the purpose of a process, the value and benefits of this, and by expressing genuine desire to help or make things better for people.
All of the procedural justice principles can be used in formal and less formal demonstrations of authority, in writing or verbally. In prison, for example, this could include warning a prisoner following rule-breaking, meetings to review someone’s location in the segregation unit (formal, verbal), notices about changes to the regime or responding to complaints (formal, written), asking someone to hurry up or responding to an ad hoc request (less formal, verbal). How would prisoners perceive their treatment by staff during a search of their cell if they feel addressed with courtesy, and feel their possessions are treated respectfully? What could be done to show that the purpose of the search is worthy (that this is to keep them and others safe, rather than to disrupt their day and possessions, to be intrusive or “just because staff can”)? How could they be encouraged to be part of the process (as much as they can be), to share concerns and ask questions? How could the prison show that they are being treated similarly to others and that they are not being singled out (or if they are, they understand why)? Or, when a prisoner receives punishment for proven rule-breaking, how much would they respect and trust the person awarding the punishment (and accept the outcome) if they feel treated with courtesy, believe their account of events is considered fully before a decision is made, believe that the same decision would have been made if anyone else had been involved or if a different staff member presided, and the purpose of the rule that was broken feels important or valuable?
The potential for prison staff in all roles to make use of these principles in day-to-day prison life is substantial. As Bierie and Mann (2017) reflected, “a focus on procedural justice reconceptualizes the role of prison staff in an exciting way. Rehabilitation need no longer be seen as the express concern and domain of speciality therapists running classes” (p. 482).
The beauty of procedural justice lies in its simplicity, but that may also be the challenge. Procedural justice can appear so simple that it is dismissed as “common sense”. After all, most people do engage in many of these behaviours at work and in their personal and social lives. However, many features of people, situations, or the environment interfere with them consistently behaving in ways that help others to perceive processes
R. Mann et al.
and practices as fair. For example, being in a rush, feeling stressed, irritable, or irritated by someone or something can get in the way of best practice. Or we do things out of habit or because it is the “traditional” way of doing a particular task, or maybe the person we are dealing with has some attribute that means we don’t think the usual rules apply. At these times or in these circumstances, it is easy not to adhere to the principles, which in turn make it more likely that treatment will be perceived as procedurally unjust, and, in turn, lessen respect and legitimacy, acceptance and compliance. The lesson from procedural justice research in criminal justice settings is that if prison staff behave deliberately and consistently in line with these principles, there will be substantial benefits for the people who live and work in prison, and the positive effect can persist over time to ultimately benefit the public too.
Physical Environment:
Do the Surroundings Make a Difference?
The physical environment of the prison will also affect the prison culture (Moran & Turner, 2018). Prison is inherently a stressful psychological place to live and work, and the state of the physical environment has the capacity to add to this stress. When using the term “physical environment” we are referring to the architecture, design, and layout of a prison, as well as the physical conditions, decor, and upkeep of the prison. The architecture, design, and layout impacts on the feel, purpose, and functioning of a prison. Prison design is closely aligned to the philosophy of the institutions, and the era in which the build takes place. Early designs such as the Victorian radial design, where prison wings are like spokes that converge on a circular “centre”, were generally constructed with a focus on restricting resident movement and enhancing surveillance, control, and discipline. More recent designs, commonly seen in the Scandinavian system, are thought of as “campus-style” layouts, typically characterised by smaller living units, communal areas, and the use of large open spaces. The design principle behind campus-style layouts is to facilitate relationships, maximising social capital/normalisation and
enhancing a community feel, and in doing so support a rehabilitative culture.
The research evidence supports this assumption. Prisons designed to foster staff-resident relationships, to maximise a community spirit and which use open spaces, generally have better aesthetics and better relationships than those designed with the aim of increasing surveillance and control. As part of the Dutch Prison Project (Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager, van der Laan, & Nieuwbeerta, 2016), prison layout was found to be related to staff-resident relationships: those held in prisons with linear layouts were less positive about relationships than those held in prisons with other layouts, and relationships were increasingly better in prison layouts with increasing focus on staff-resident interactions, with those housed in campus-style layouts being the most positive about relationships. These findings are likely in part due to the physical distance between staff and residents within the linear layouts, which may result in more detached and distant relationships. In addition, those housed in older units and in units with more double cells were less positive about staff-resident interactions. These findings are in line with other previous research in Norwegian prisons (Johnsen, Granheim, & Helgesen, 2011), as well as a recent study conducted in Canada (Weinrath, Budzinski, & Melnyk, 2016). Whilst it is unclear whether prison design/layout is associated with misconduct (e.g. Morris & Worrall, 2014), it is clear that architecture matters for staff-resident interactions. We also know that individuals held in prison tend to prefer and be more content in smaller prisons and units (Beyens, Gilbert, & Devresse, 2012), and in single, not double, cells (Cox, Paulus, & McCain, 1984). Cell sharing has been associated with health problems (e.g. Cox et al., 1984), and greater misconduct (Schaeffer, Baum, Paulus, & Gaes, 1988), although there are also some benefits such as decreased risk of death by suicide (e.g. Humber, Webb, Piper, Appleby, & Shaw, 2013) and some people in prison prefer to share than be alone.
The physical condition of the prison can also affect its culture. Some types of environments have the capacity to increase the likelihood of challenging behaviour, and lead to distress. This includes environments with limited opportunities for social interaction, lack of choice, and sensory input or excessive noise. It also includes environments that are
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
CHAPITRE XII DIEU ET LE ROI
Instabilité, incohérence, insécurité, individualisme destructeur, prédominance de la médiocrité envieuse, dissolution de la famille, tels sont les fruits de la démocratie en France, depuis cent trente ans.
Stabilité, continuité, sécurité, discipline, autorité familiale, développement des élites, tels furent et tels seront les fruits de la Monarchie.
Le Roi est le chef-né des pères de famille parce qu’héréditairement, son intérêt et son devoir se confondent pour qu’il se conforme à ce beau titre et qu’il soit le père de la grande famille nationale.
Mais ce pouvoir et cet honneur, il ne les méritera que s’il en fait remonter l’origine à la Providence et que s’il les place sous l’égide des prières de l’Église qui, avec la Monarchie, sacrée par elle, a construit la France.
Un Roi qui serait indifférent à la religion, ou qui partagerait l’incrédulité, hostile à l’Église, des régimes qu’il remplacera, subirait bientôt les mêmes revers que les gouvernements qui fondèrent leurs institutions sur l’athéisme.
Mais le Roi croyant et pratiquant se sera pénétré des maximes énoncées par le Psalmiste :
« Si le Seigneur n’a bâti la maison, c’est en vain qu’ils travaillent ceux qui l’édifièrent sans lui.
« Si le Seigneur ne garde la Cité, c’est inutilement qu’il veille celui qui a charge de la protéger. »
Dès lors, la miséricorde divine lui donnera les lumières dont il aura besoin pour remplir la tâche sublime que Bossuet lui assigne dans sa Politique tirée de l’Évangile :
« Soyez parmi vos sujets comme l’un d’eux. Ne soyez point orgueilleux ; rendez-vous accessible et familier ; ne vous croyez pas, devant Dieu, d’un autre métal que vos sujets. Mettez-vous à leur place et soyez-leur tel que vous voudriez qu’ils fussent s’ils étaient à la vôtre.
« Ayez soin d’eux tous et ne vous reposez qu’après avoir pourvu à tout. Le repos alors vous est permis.
« Le Roi est un personnage public qui doit croire que quelque chose lui manque à lui-même quand quelque chose manque au peuple et à l’État. »
Ainsi le Roi, homme de sacrifice et d’abnégation, se rendra digne de régner sous l’emblème qui surmonte sa couronne : la croix de Jésus-Christ.
TABLE DES MATIÈRES
NOUVELLE LIBRAIRIE NATIONALE
2, Place du Panthéon, Paris, Ve
NOUVEAUTÉS
AVENTINO. ROME. Flâneries mystiques et silhouettes. Un volume in-16 sur bel alfa teinté 10 fr. Colonel GROS LONG. LA CONNAISSANCE DE LA GUERRE. Un volume in-16 7 fr
Pietro GORGOLINI — LE FASCISME. Traduit par Eugène M Préface de Jacques B Un volume in-16 7 fr
NEL ARIÈS. L’ÉCONOMIE POLITIQUE ET LA DOCTRINE
CATHOLIQUE. Préface de Georges V . Un volume in-16 10 fr.
LÉON DAUDET L’HÉCATOMBE. Un volume in-16 (32e mille) 7 fr
RENÉ GROUSSET — HISTOIRE DE LA PHILOSOPHIE ORIENTALE.
Mgr SIMON DEGLOIPE. CONFLIT DE LA MORALE ET DE LA SOCIOLOGIE. Un volume in-8 écu
HENRI MIGUET DE SAURET-LA-HONTE A MANGIN-LE-BOUCHER. Un volume in-16 7 fr MORTON-FULLERTON — AU SEUIL DE LA PROVENCE. Un volume in16 sur bel alfa 5 fr.
N.-B. La Librairie envoie son catalogue franco sur demande.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LA MAISON EN ORDRE ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at
the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGESExcept for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
