Prison subculture

Print Valery Abramkin

I. Preface

The indicators by which criminologists usually judge the degree of inhumanity of the criminal justice system and the criminal policies of states is the relative number (per 100 thousand population) of executions and prisoners: after deprivation of life, imprisonment is the cruelest form of punishment. As can be seen from Fig. I (see p. 116), Russia and the USA are world leaders in terms of the latest indicator. The United States took the lead not so long ago (at the end of the 20th century), and before that Russia remained the prison leader for more than 70 years. According to experts, every fourth adult man in our country is a former prisoner. At the beginning of the 20th century, both countries were relatively prosperous in this regard - no more than 100 prisoners per 100 thousand.

The number of people in prison or camp-type institutions is one of the main factors that determines the level of zoning [1] , that is, the penetration of the prison subculture [2] (prison morals, customs, language, etc.) into the free environment.

Much has been written about Russian prisons over the past 20 years. Anything. But with all the variety of topics and plots, the attention of most of the authors is focused on the exotic aspects of the life of prisoners (jargon, tattoos, lawlessness, sex behind bars, etc.).

Our organization (Center for the Advancement of Criminal Justice Reform [3] ) has from the very beginning set itself the task of studying the prison community [4] . A significant part of the Center’s research and analytical materials has been published in a series of books and brochures “Criminal Russia - Prisons and Camps” [5] , published since 1993. These publications made it possible to attract experts to discuss prison problems. In 1992, with a circulation of 60 thousand copies. The book “Helping a Prisoner” [6] was published (better known as “How to Survive in a Soviet Prison”). The bulk of the circulation was distributed in prisons and camps, among relatives of prisoners. Responses to this book have become valuable research material, as have the letters we receive from prisons, camps, from activists of non-governmental organizations [7] , listeners of the weekly radio program “Clouds” [8] .

During the research, we sought to understand what mechanisms help a person survive and preserve himself as an individual in the terrible, inhuman and humiliating conditions of a Russian prison. And we realized from the very first interviews that our prisoners manage to remain individuals. With former political prisoners of the post-Stalin era [9] , everything is clear: people, initially individuals, fought for the truth, for an idea, and could (and this is important) count on support, on self-respect, or, in extreme cases, on the memory of themselves. When we began interviewing ordinary prisoners, we realized that among the so-called “domestic workers” who passed through the zone, there were many people who managed to maintain their identity in the most difficult conditions.

Gradually, we came to the conclusion that our prison subculture [10] contains the strongest mechanisms for preserving personality. In this sense, it differs from the prison subcultures of most other countries - a circumstance that was noted by researchers of the Russian prison world of the 19th century [11] .

2. The right house

Our prison subculture allows its bearers to preserve not only their personality, but often their life. The easiest way for me to explain how this happens, how the prison subculture works, is with the help of a photograph (see p. 113), sent to us in 1994 by an inmate of the “Matrosskaya Tishina” pre-trial detention center (SIZO). It gives a fairly accurate picture of life in a Russian prison at the end of the 20th century.

For an ordinary person, this photo is terrifying: in a cell with an area of ​​70 square meters. m (36 bunk beds) - 140 prisoners. We see only those who are “hanging out”, settled down at the table, sitting and lying on bunks. And there and under the bunks there are prisoners who were not included in the frame. On average, there is approximately 0.2 square meters per person in this cell. m of free space.

In such a chamber, sweat corrodes the skin and ulcers form on it. To light a match, you need to go to the window. The impression is that it is impossible to survive in such conditions for more than a day. But people have been sitting for years.

In fact, it just seems like the cell is hell on earth. An experienced person, looking at the photo, will immediately understand that in fact this is a good cell, a “proper house”, as they say in prison, order reigns here. And order is most important to a prisoner. The worst thing in a camp or prison is not the disgusting food, not the terrible conditions, not hunger and cold, not the bullying of the jailers, but the chaos in the cell. There is nothing worse than him in prison. More than once I have had the opportunity to observe how this, albeit monstrous, but still order turns into chaos: the feeling that the world is collapsing! Someone is about to rush at you, grab you by the throat, drive a sharpening point under your rib, etc. From the photograph we can judge that in this hut no one will tear their throats out or throw themselves at each other: order reigns here.

It is also clear that this is a transit cell and the people in it are not first-timers, but experienced prisoners, repeat offenders. If you look closely, there is a man at the table who has a tattoo on his back - “five church domes.” In prison parlance, each church dome is one walk. The prisoner has five domes, which means five walkers. Perhaps he did not have time to correct the tattoo, then this is the sixth.

Please note - everyone is sitting quietly: one is finishing his gruel, another is reading a book, a third is reading a newspaper, a fourth is talking to someone... 140 people! Why don’t the big guys, who are probably among those lying under the bunks, become indignant and sweep away those who have settled down at the table? Because people of authority sit at the table. Of course, the situation of those under the bunk is terrible. But the prisoners sitting there understand that this is better than being in chaos.

In the “correct huts” there are strict rules: the use of physical force is suppressed, extortion and suppression of personality are prohibited, help is provided to those in need, the interests of everyone are taken into account to the extent that they do not infringe on the interests of others.

The new prisoner must be shown everything by the gang - the inhabitants of the cell - and told about all the rules. Only after this can you ask for their violation. A person put behind bars for the first time is clean according to prison law. In freedom he could be anyone and do anything, here he begins a new life. He is a baby, and there is no demand from him. This is rule number one - you cannot ask a person for violating a norm that he does not know about. How did this order arise, how was it established?

The Russian prison subculture is based on the basic (terminal) values ​​of traditional Russian culture. Perhaps that is why it is perceived by the free world as something understandable. That is, it is not our people that are criminal, but the crime (more precisely, the prison community) that is folk (cultured).

In the collective ideas of prisoners, values ​​are arranged in approximately the same order as in our traditional culture. To many, this statement may seem strange and unfounded. But what's strange here? Many people are concentrated in prisons and camps, most of them not criminal at all and belonging to the same culture. The ways of organizing life that the administration offers them are in clear contradiction with the values, ideals, norms, and signs of their native culture. So, in order to save the main thing that makes up human nature, they are forced to build their own world, which seems normal to them, to establish the order that allows them to preserve themselves as individuals, and simply preserve life.

In the zone, order is maintained with the help of “correct concepts” (informal prison law) and prison justice (“showdowns”). In the wild, the expression “live by standards” is synonymous with lawlessness. In prison, “correct concepts” are not only a behavioral, but also a moral law, with which everyone must compare their actions. The following comparison can be made: in Russia the law has always been disrespected; they believed that one should live not according to the law, but according to the truth. The situation in the zone is similar, only there the truth is the correct concepts. That is, the correct concepts are the very atmosphere in which people live in prison. They themselves create and maintain this atmosphere in order for people to come out into the wild. In the right terms, a lot of things can seem wild, cruel, and senseless. But a person who has gone through this school will almost certainly say: the way of life that is dictated by these concepts is easier and more reasonable than that prescribed by the authorities. Precisely by the authorities, and not by the law (which is also quite cruel), since the law in the zones is completely replaced by instructions and orders. And the staff interprets them as they please. The administration, too, does not live by the law, but by its own “concepts.”

Prison justice (showdowns) is not much different from community justice, which still survives in some Old Believers settlements. They use approximately the same mechanisms, norms, and procedures that we observe in prison. In our traditional culture, for example, there is such a norm: a decision must be made unanimously (the principle of consensus). What if one of the disassemblers is against it? The conflict must be resolved. This is done in approximately the same way as in Khomyakov’s description of a village gathering: “If the gathering does not come to agreement, to unanimity, then the gathering turns to the person beloved from the entire gathering.”

“Beloved from the whole gathering” must be authoritative for both parties: the one to whom the claims are made, and the one who makes the claims.

One more example. There is a norm in government law: “ignorance of the law does not exempt you from responsibility.” For a normal person this seems strange: why doesn’t it liberate? If someone violated a norm without knowing it, what guilt or responsibility could he have? You can’t ask someone who doesn’t know - this is customary in our culture, and this is also customary among prisoners [12] .

Other examples can be given that indicate that the norms of the prison subculture are very similar to those by which the grassroots life of our citizens, not connected with the state, is built.

3. About prison castes (hierarchy of prisoners)

In the prison social structure, established in the 60s of the last century, there are four main castes (“suits”) of prisoners: thieves (“blacks”), men (“grays”), goats (“red”) and omitted (“blues”) ").

Blatny [13] are representatives of the highest group in the informal hierarchy of prisoners, the guardians of prison law. Jailers classify thieves and other prisoners who are capable of “pumping up” (that is, defending) rights and resisting the administration as “denialists” [14] .

The thieves claim real power in the zone or in prison. Most often, it has to be achieved in a fierce struggle with official power (i.e., with the administration). If the thieves still manage to build the life of the zone according to the “correct concepts”, they, through gangways and showdowns, subjugate the internal (informal) life of the zone, create a mutual aid fund for prisoners (common fund) and control the distribution of funds from it, etc. The thieves do not work; neither in the zone, nor in freedom - at least in “powerful” positions (in the police, in the service sector, in general in any positions that give a person any official power over others). The powers of thieves, defined by prison law, are inseparable from very difficult responsibilities, and they can be asked for mistakes (“shoals”) even outside. Blatnoy is obliged to ensure that the rights and interests of all groups of prisoners are not violated either by the administration or by the inhabitants of the zone themselves. A proper criminal should not allow any clashes between prisoners at all, so that someone would be unfairly punished, insulted, or deprived.

The thieves are responsible for ensuring that the zone “warms up” normally, i.e., receives food, tea, tobacco, clothing (sometimes alcohol, drugs...), etc. through legal and illegal means. For the thieves, it is an honor and valor, so he can stay in the punishment cell, punishment cells and other places for months to punish prisoners.

A candidate for thieves should not have “shoals” behind him during his prison and free life. Moreover, he may not be a professional criminal or a criminal leader, but such a past usually helps the prisoner fall into the caste of thieves.

The elite of the prison world are thieves in law, a kind of initiates recognized by well-known authorities even on the outside. If there is no real thief in law in the zone, the world of thieves can appoint one of the thieves sitting in it as a “supervisor” who must ensure that the prison law is observed.

Men are the largest group in the prison community. It consists mainly of people random to prison who are going to return to normal life after release and who in civilized countries most likely would not be deprived of their freedom.

The majority of men adhere to the correct concepts. They differ from thieves in that the prison law not only allows a man to work (in simple positions), but also imposes on him something like the following obligation: hard-working men in the zone are respected (both by the administration and the prisoners). A man should not interfere in the affairs of thieves (except in cases of thieves' lawlessness), claim to participate in solving issues important for the prison world - he does not have the right to vote in showdowns, gangways, etc. Nevertheless, all groups of prisoners listen to the opinions of authoritative men.

Picture 1

Unlike goats, men should not openly cooperate with the administration, they should simply work, earn money, but not serve or curry favor.

Goats [15] are prisoners who openly cooperate with the administration. They, as a rule, fall into the category of positive-minded convicts [16] , who have a real chance of being released early, transferred to an institution with a softer regime, etc.

The formal reason for getting into the caste of goats may be joining an “amateur organization of convicts” (most often, in the SDP - the discipline and order section), agreeing to take an official position that is considered shameful according to the correct concepts, or which gives the opportunity to command other prisoners.

For the majority of prisoners, goats are traitors to the interests of the prison community, collaborators.

The Omitted [17] are the lowest group in this informal hierarchy, the untouchable caste.

It is a very common opinion that the omitted are prisoners who agreed to be passive homosexuals in the zone. But, according to experts, there are no more than 20% of those who are voluntary homosexuals [18] . Dismissed prisoners most often end up in pre-trial detention centers or in transit prisons (“transit”). As a rule, they fall into this caste for gross violations of prison law: informing, ratting [19] , unpaid gambling debt, lawlessness in relation to other prisoners. They also let down the pressers [20] , the presumptuous goats, and the woolen [21] . Sometimes they also omit those who committed crimes in freedom that are shameful from the standpoint of correct concepts [22] : rape of children, brutal rape of women, brutal unmotivated murder, etc.

For prisoners of other groups, the omitted is a kind of untouchable. You can’t take anything from him, you can’t touch him (except in certain situations, usually related to sex), sit on his bunk, etc. If you let him smoke, then you must take the cigarette out of the pack yourself and throw it in front of him, so that God forbid he touches the pack - in this case it is considered “shabby”, unclean. Those detainees have their own separate places in the barracks, prison cell [23] , in the canteen they have their own marked dishes, they perform the dirtiest jobs - those that prisoners of other groups do not have the right to undertake. Those who are released often have identification marks: a distinctive tattoo design, a spoon in the breast pocket of their jacket, appropriate clothing, etc. They are required to report upon arrival at a new place where they are not known who they are so that other prisoners do not get confused ", i.e. they did not enter into communication with them. Hiding your status is pointless and dangerous; sooner or later the prisoners will find out about everything, and then the one who has been left out is punished: beaten, sometimes killed. The status of a prisoner is for life; a break in his prison career does not cancel it.

A prisoner who has committed a serious offense sometimes prefers to voluntarily join the caste of the lowered (for example, he moves things to the corner of the barracks assigned to the lowered). In this case, as a rule, he is not subjected to any ritual procedures or rape.

4. Prison law and thieves’ law

It can definitely be said that in all past prison subcultures there was nothing similar to the caste omitted and associated rituals, taboos, etc.

The treatment of those who have been cast down seems not only unjustifiably cruel, but also completely alien to our culture: in Russia there has never been an untouchable caste similar to the Indian one.

However, some distant analogies to the institution of the omitted in our traditional culture can be found. Let's say there was a tradition of expulsion from the community for certain offenses. But these people did not form any caste, especially one located within the community. True, in prison conditions there is no place to expel a person. Perhaps this is why such a punishment arose: since we cannot expel, we will refuse any form of communication.

When you get to know our prisons and camps through letters and stories from prisoners or during zoo visits, you get the impression that we are dealing with a direct legacy of the Stalinist Gulag. But our research has shown that this is not the case. The prison population of Stalin's camps was never a single community, did not have any collective ideas [24] , common moral principles and norms.

The Gulag, which absorbed millions of people, entire layers and strata of society, was a world of worlds, consisting, as one of its prisoners noted, of “people of different breeds,” most of them morally and psychologically completely unprepared for prison. Of course, they could not unite to unanimously resist the camp administration [25] .

The only group that could be called a “cultural community” were prisoners who adhered to the “thieves’ law” (thieves’ world). But this law in the 30-50s did not apply to all prisoners. It was a purely internal way of organizing the life of thieves. The whole world, according to thieves' concepts, was divided into friends and foes. Moreover, strangers had only the only value that their own could exist and survive at their expense. “This is a special world of people who have ceased to be people,” Shalamov writes about the thieves, “urks are not Robin Hoods! When you need to steal from goons, they steal from goons. When it is necessary to remove the last foot wraps from a freezing person, they do not disdain them.” “Their main slogan is: you die today, and I die tomorrow!” — we read about thieves from Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

5. Decline of the “thieves’ era” of the Gulag

Until the mid-40s, the authorities considered the thieves to be “socially close”, and they were in a privileged position in the zone. It was partly through their hands that the camp authorities kept the huge masses of prisoners in fear.

By the end of the 40s, the policy of socially close people reached a dead end, since it led to an increase in professional crime in the wild, and in the zones the thieves took too much power. The existence of such an independent and difficult-to-control community did not suit the political leadership of the country.

In 1947, it significantly tightened penalties for theft, robbery, etc. The terms for this offense were short, but here they immediately increased to 10, even 25 years. And in 1948, in the largest camps of the country, the so-called “war of bitches and thieves” broke out almost simultaneously, a war that resulted in the self-destruction of the criminal world. Sometimes this war is presented as a clash between orthodox thieves, religiously observing the thieves’ law, and thieves-reformers (“bitches”, “creepy thieves”). The reformers insisted on making some changes to the law, which were dictated by life itself and the interests of the craft [26] . However, the global nature of the civil strife that broke out, its instant spread across various islands of the Gulag, indicates that it was a well-thought-out and pre-planned action by the authorities. There are numerous known cases of torture and execution of thieves who remained faithful to the “law”, committed with the knowledge and with the participation of the NKVD and camp personnel. “Bitches” who betrayed thieves’ customs were demonstratively appointed to “stupid” positions that gave significant power over prisoners. However, the nature of this power was now fundamentally different: its bearers were completely dependent on the mercy of the Gulag authorities. Thousands of thieves in law were destroyed during the war of “bitches and thieves.” Those who did not change the law and did not deviate from the usual zones were removed, placing them in special camps and prisons. As former prisoners noted, by the end of the 50s, thieves in law had finally lost their former weight. So the old criminal world could hardly have had a direct influence on the new prison subculture that was emerging in the first half of the 60s. But there certainly was an indirect influence: having disappeared from the real life of the zones, thieves in law “moved” into the realm of legends and became role models. There were legends about famous thieves, from which one could glean the basic principles and norms of communal justice. In accordance with these - largely legendary - norms, prisoners, left without living bearers of the law, began to build their “correct order”.

Many norms of the thieves' law (non-acceptance of denunciation, prohibitions on cooperation with jailers, with representatives of law enforcement agencies, etc.) migrated to prison law. Only the latter, as we have already noted, applies to the entire prison population, all groups of prisoners. It protects any prisoner from arbitrariness, not just thieves. Nothing can be taken (taken away) from a prisoner without his permission or without a legal (within the framework of prison law) basis. It is prohibited to bring charges against a person without solid evidence. A prisoner must not be insulted [27] .

“Prison law” requires strict thoughtfulness and restraint in speeches: “watch the broom!” (i.e., watch what you say - one of its important provisions). Conflict situations are resolved through “showdowns” or through an appeal to authorities who do not separate themselves from the bulk of prisoners. This completely unwritten law is passed on by prisoners from generation to generation.

6. Criminal policy of 1953-1967 and the transformation of the prison subculture

The riots that followed Stalin's death, amnesties, rehabilitations, trials of some particularly distinguished executioners, the disbandment of numerous camps and even individual camp administrations - all this radically softened the climate of the Gulag. Most of the camps essentially become institutions of an open or semi-open type: prisoners are allowed to wear their own clothes, have money, commercial canteens are opened, etc. Some of the then inmates said that they worked outside (who could get a job where), and in the zone came before lights out to sleep. A system of credits was introduced: those who exceeded the quota for camp work could be counted as two, even three, a day, i.e., the sentence was reduced not in some indefinite future, but during the entire time the person was serving his sentence [28] . The prison then again, as in pre-revolutionary times, began to live as a community, in which people care about each other and people are not abandoned in trouble. Relations with the jailers also became more humane, and something like mutual interest appeared. This interest was also material - nothing surprising, the administration had previously fed on prisoners, but now the relationship has become mutually beneficial (of course, shadow).

However, in 1961, there was a radical tightening of legislation, criminal and penitentiary policies of the state. These changes were not associated with the deterioration of the criminal situation, but with the proclamation of a course towards building communism. Khrushchev promised in 1980, when communism was finally defeated, to personally shake hands with the last prisoner. Soon the camps (renamed colonies) turn into closed institutions, all signs and signs of the free world are carefully destroyed in them, and the separation of the prison from freedom begins. Severe regime rules are established, contacts with family and friends are limited, uniforms [29] and a system of cruel disciplinary punishments are introduced (for example, deprivation of visits, the right to receive parcels, purchase food at a stall), the institution of “branding” is restored: haircut (for men ) etc. Instead of credits, a system of parole is being introduced - now the reduction of the term has become almost entirely dependent on the administration. For those who refused to work and those who did not fulfill the quota, punishment was provided in the form of placement in punishment cells with a reduced standard of food, which, according to the conclusion of Soviet human rights activists, was essentially torture by hunger [30] .

7. System of punitive self-government

But the system of self-government of convicts, which we mentioned above, was introduced in the same years and was much worse than the strict regime. Sections are given some personnel powers and functions that go beyond official powers, which has significantly expanded the range of latent methods of suppressing prisoners. Unlike informers, members of “amateur organizations of convicts” do not hide their membership - they wear badges, armbands, etc. [31] . The institution of nomenklatura positions appears , which can only be occupied by those “who have taken the path of correction.” Members of the “sections” are charged with writing reports on other prisoners who violated the regime [32] , maintaining order, and even conducting raids around the zone.

Soon they began to herd prisoners into the sections almost by force: “Give up, enemy, whoever doesn’t surrender is destroyed.” We worked especially closely with the new arrivals (stage participants). From those who broke down, the future caste of goats was gradually formed. But there were not so many of them. Refuseniks were “held and held” in punishment cells, PKT (punishment-type premises), cultivating a caste of new thieves from particularly stubborn ones. In essence, traditional culture was put to the test of strength, since in our culture betrayal is a sin worse than murder.

8. Criminal policy in the late Soviet and post-Soviet periods [33]

It can be argued that this policy was not actually dictated by any socially significant goals, including concern for the safety of the population. It was more of a campaign nature. The prosecutor's office, investigative and judicial authorities received planned tasks to catch certain categories of offenders: suddenly a campaign was launched to combat hooliganism, and it turned out that there was a whole army of these hooligans in the country; the fight against bribery led to an immediate increase in the number of bribe takers; if the Central Committee of the CPSU ordered to deal with persons “leading a parasitic lifestyle,” legions of “vagrants” and “parasites” appeared as if by magic.

True, the size of the camp population had its limits. No one was fed for free in the camps, and as soon as unemployment began to appear among prisoners, the authorities carried out amnesties. Most of those amnestied were sent to “chemistry” - that’s what the prisoners called a suspended sentence with mandatory involvement in work [34] in industries where free people could not be lured.

Economic reasons also determined the terms of punishment. The people most suitable for camp production were those who had time to learn some necessary profession before being released and then work for several years. More than 70% of prisoners received sentences of more than three years and about half more than five years. In the 70s of the 20th century, a reform of correctional labor institutions was carried out: camp production began to work in cooperation with large state enterprises. This required the creation of colonies with a large (1,500–3,000) number of prisoners. A significant part of the ITU turned into huge industrial complexes, adjacent to which was a residential area with barracks.

This army of semi-slaves had to be replenished - in total, from the beginning of the 60s to the end of the 80s, Soviet courts handed down 35 million sentences to imprisonment. According to various estimates, former prisoners among the adult male population of our country range from 15 to 25%.

The easing of criminal policy during the years of perestroika led to a reduction in the prison population by 30-40%, and judicial practice changed noticeably [35] .

However, the new criminal policy was not based on any serious concept or program. The approach to the problem of crime still remained voluntaristic [36] . With one hand softening criminal policy, with the other the authorities actually tightened it and continued to link it with the efficiency of using prison labor. For example, the rights of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to transfer prisoners to the regions were expanded in accordance with the needs of production.

The movement of huge masses of prisoners led to destabilization of the situation in Soviet prisons and camps [37] . This was facilitated by the glasnost that came with perestroika. The media, which had the opportunity to cover emergencies occurring in the zones, without knowing it, contributed to the spread of protest sentiments among prisoners, whose situation was truly terrible.

In 1991, a wave of mass strikes, hunger strikes and even riots swept through Russian pre-trial detention centers and colonies. This was partly due to the fact that the administration did not really understand how to behave in the new conditions, and instructions were coming from the center that contradicted one another. The beginning of the “hot autumn of 1991” [38] was marked by a riot in the Krasnoyarsk “six” (colony No. 6). The prisoners confiscated firearms and radios from the guards and placed prisoners found in collaboration with the administration in a restricted area. The immediate entry of troops into the “six” was prevented by the residents of the surrounding houses, who, heeding the calls of the rebels, surrounded the colony with a living ring. The prisoners lived by “their own laws” for 40 days, which did not work out very well for them. I then (as part of a group of deputies of the BC RSFSR and human rights activists) had the opportunity to take part in resolving the conflict. We tried to find a compromise solution that would suit both the camp leadership and the rebels. It was eventually worked out, but for various reasons it was not possible to do without the deployment of troops. This action resulted in almost no casualties.

I am confident that conflicts of this kind can and should be resolved through negotiations (mediation). But mediators need to be able to speak the same language with both prisoners and the administration, so in the fall of 1991 we necessarily included former prisoners in the groups of “ambassadors of freedom.” In those zones where the rebel leaders were “correct prisoners,” as a rule, it was possible to find a compromise. Thus, the prison law played a positive role here too. Many “correct prisoners” turned out to be real peacemakers, and a general explosion of the million-strong Gulag was then avoided.

Mass protests by prisoners in the fall of 1991 for the first time (after the camp riots of the early 50s) were of a clearly political nature. In a number of regions, the demands of prisoners met with understanding and even support from prison service employees.

At the call of the Moscow Helsinki Group and our Center, an all-Russian prisoner strike was held on November 13, 1991, after which the federal government had to legislate the main demands of prisoners, human rights activists and penitentiary staff. Corresponding amendments made to the penal legislation in June 1992 brought it significantly closer to international standards. This naturally led to a decrease in social tension in places of detention. Relations between prisoners and the administration have also improved. One explanation for this phenomenon: a general deterioration in the economic situation of both prisoners and camp staff. Under these conditions, both groups were forced to look for ways to survive together.

9. Bad Infinity

Unfortunately, while there is certainly a positive trend, the state’s criminal policy continues to remain straightforward and cruel. The jailers themselves admit this: in one of his interviews, the director of the Federal Penitentiary Service, Yuri Kalinin, said: “Only 12-16% of prisoners are a “criminal element,” the rest are ordinary men who ended up in prison by chance, by the will of fate. Although, of course, they themselves are to blame for something, but not so much that they should rot in prison for so long.”

By 2005, the number of prisoners had decreased to 760 thousand, which made it possible to slightly improve their conditions of detention (as can be judged by such an integral indicator as the number of tuberculosis patients - see Fig. 2 on p. 121). But in recent years, the prison population began to grow again and by 1997 reached almost 900 thousand people. The average length of stay in places of deprivation of liberty has also increased.

Another alarming development is that the penitentiary policies of the last five years have led to a new rise in tensions in correctional institutions. Since 2004, riots in the colonies have become almost a common occurrence. Moreover, protests by prisoners are, as a rule, not related to the conditions of detention (federal budget expenditures per prisoner have increased eightfold over the past ten years), but to the increased activity of the authorities aimed at suppressing the prison subculture. As in the 60s, the offensive is being carried out under the slogan of the fight against thieves’ traditions and criminal authorities. Again, those who refused to become members of the section began to be oppressed in every possible way.

The reasons for mass protests by prisoners were repeatedly discussed at the Presidential Council for Promotion of Civil Society Institutions and Human Rights. The leadership of the Federal Penitentiary Service (FSIN), recognizing that individual employees commit illegal actions, blames everything on criminal authorities who allegedly purposefully “destabilize the system.”

All this looks like fables about saboteurs, enemies of the people, or a Masonic conspiracy. It is not clear why the authorities need all this. They are now sitting like kings. No prison in the world has such “raspberries” as ours. If you had money, you would be served whatever your heart desires: booze, restaurant food, drugs, and even girls.

The confrontation between prisoners and administration is becoming increasingly fierce. Traditional culture has the peculiarity that when it is pushed to the brink of survival, it suddenly gains new strength. Its carriers will throw themselves under tanks, blow themselves up, but will not surrender.

It is possible to soften the morals of the prison world only by methods that take into account the peculiarities of the subculture that has developed in places of deprivation of liberty - and nothing else!

---

[1] Prizonization is the introduction of a prison subculture into the life of the free population. Although the term itself comes from the English prison (prison), it is quite intelligible to the Russian ear, which is well familiar with the word zone.

[2] Here and below the word culture is used in a meaning close to sociological. Culture as a tool for maintaining peace and harmony, order in society, resolving conflict situations non-violently, ensuring a minimum level of social tension and mass deviations from accepted norms of behavior; as the main and most effective mechanism for the socialization of a person, his gradual inclusion in society; as a way of transmitting social experience accumulated over centuries: norms, rules and patterns of behavior, patterns of life and activity, and most importantly, the spiritual basis of culture - ideals (“pain and wisdom of generations”), which modern sociology calls values.

[3] From 1988 to 1992, the Center was called “Prison and Freedom.” Now this is the name of the Center’s website [ www.prison.org ].

[4] The head of the Center’s research group is V. F. Chesnokova, whose works were published under the pseudonym Ksenia Kasyanova (see, for example: Kasyanova K. On the Russian National Character. M.: Institute of National Model of Economics, 1994).

[5] And also on the website [ www.prison.org ].

[6] Abramkin V.F.. Chizhov Yu.V. To help a prisoner. Krasnoyarsk: Agency "Vostok", 1992. The text is also posted on the website [ www.prison.org ].

[7] Every month the Center receives from 6 to 20 thousand letters. Some of them, with expert comments, are also published in the series “Criminal Russia. Prisons and camps" (collections "Letters from the Zone").

[8] The program “Clouds” has been broadcast on Radio Russia since 1992. This is a program about prisoners, for prisoners and for all those who care about their fate.

[9] Abramkin V.F., Chesnokova V.F. The prison world through the eyes of political prisoners. M.: Publishing House "ANT", 1998.

[10] Further, speaking about the prison subculture, I will have in mind, first of all, the male subculture, although in the Russian prison world there are several subcultures: female, “youngsters”, “pervokhodok” (people who went to prison for the first time).

[11] Yadrintsev N.M. Russian community in prison and exile. St. Petersburg, 1872.

[12] If during the showdown it is established that the prisoner did not know this or that norm of prison law, responsibility rests with the one who must explain (this is the “supervisor” or “corner”) the law to every new arrival.

[13] Most often, thieves do not call themselves that, using various euphemisms: authority, correct prisoner, tramp, tramp, swindler, etc. Old synonyms (zhigans, people, plowmen, etc.), known from the literature about the Gulag, are rarely used .

[14] The official term used for this group is “negative convicts.”

[15] Goats do not call themselves that; various euphemisms are used: activist, red, independent man, positive, etc. In general, the word “goat” and its derivatives (“goats”, “goat”, “goat” and even “horned”, “pronged”) are taboo, they are forbidden to be used in everyday speech. For example, the game of dominoes, known by this name outside, is called “one hundred and one” in prison; To tell another that he has something knitted from goat hair means to insult him.

[16] Officially, they are called “persons firmly on the path of correction.”

[17] Frequently used euphemisms: offended, roosters, faggots...

[18] A person who was a passive homosexual in freedom and failed to hide this also falls into the category of the degraded.

[19] Stealing something from other prisoners.

[20] Prisoners who agreed to perform, on the instructions of a pre-trial detention center employee or investigator, the function of an executioner, a torturer of other prisoners in the press chamber. Usually in the personal or operational file of the press operator there is a mark that serves as an indication for the operator

about the possibility of appropriate use of this prisoner. Exposing the press operator is fraught with cruel reprisals for him.

[21] Prisoners who present themselves as authoritative, thieves, but in fact they are lawless, acting in their own interests or at the direction of the administration.

[22] Just the text of an indictment or a court sentence cannot serve as evidence that a prisoner actually committed a given crime - prisoners know very well how cases and sentences are now “molded.” The degree of guilt (and responsibility) for a particular action (in prison or outside) is determined during a showdown (sometimes a gang meeting). Someone found guilty has the right to a kind of appeal, an appeal to authorities, even if these authorities are in another cell, zone or outside.

[23] In the above photograph we will not see the omitted ones. Their place is on the floor, not necessarily under the bunks, perhaps they lie near the bucket.

[24] in contrast to the current prison community or the pre-revolutionary community.

[25] The situation, as A.I. Solzhenitsyn notes, changed after a flow of former front-line soldiers, prisoners of fascist camps, etc. entered the camps, and the influence of thieves in the zone weakened somewhat.

[26] One of the innovations is the lifting of the complete ban on contacts with the authorities. This ban prevented the involvement of “cops” in thieves’ cases and the use of their services.

[27] It is generally prohibited to use swear words in “proper huts” and zones.

[28] According to the current procedure, consideration of the issue of parole is possible only after the convicted person has served from one-third to three-quarters of the sentence (depending on the category of the convicted person). The decision to apply parole is made by the court, but to a large extent it depends on the characteristics presented by the administration of the correctional institution.

[29] Women, for example, were given soldier's shirts and long johns, while their own underwear and nightgowns were prohibited.

[30] The reduced food allowance was only abolished during perestroika (in 1988).

[31] According to our observations, open cooperation with the administration through “self-government bodies” has an even more destructive effect on the prisoner’s personality than secret cooperation.

[32] In prison language around that time, expressions appeared: “sectarian” - a member of a section, “turn in your skin” - file a report about a violation committed by another prisoner, etc.

[33] The criminal policy of this period and the problems associated with it are covered in detail in the publications of the Center (Abramkin V.F. Searching for a way out. M.: Human Rights, 1996. Prison population of Russia and other countries: Problems and trends. M.: Center for Assistance criminal justice reform, 2003), works of domestic and foreign criminologists (Gilinsky Ya. I. Criminology. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2002; Christie N. Fighting crime as an industry. 2nd ed. M.: POO "Center for Assistance to Reform criminal justice", 2001; Christie N. Response to violence // Police. 2002. No. 8; Christie N. In search of monsters // Police. 2002. No. 9.).

[34] The word “chemistry” appeared in prison language because the introduction of a new type of punishment coincided with a campaign to chemicalize the national economy, and amnestied prisoners were sent to special commandant’s offices (dormitories) located on the territory of existing or under construction chemical factories and factories.

[35] In 1987-1989, the number of suspects and accused to whom such a preventive measure as detention was applied decreased by 2-2.5 times (compared to 1983-1985); decreased by 12-15% . The relative number of court sentences to imprisonment

[36] They say that the decision to reduce prisoners was made at a meeting of the CPSU Central Committee in connection with the declassification of prison statistics. Before publishing it, the authorities considered it best to reduce the number of prisoners to at least the US level. The corresponding directive was sent to the investigative authorities and courts.

[37] The “mixing” of prisoners led to the spread of “correct concepts” across institutions of different types and regions.

[38] These events are described in detail in the “Hot Autumn of 1991” section on the website [ www.prison.org ].

Why and for what do people go to prison ? Is it possible to humanize the prison system in Russia?