14 euros a day for a full-time job? Prof. Dr. Christine Graebsch, a lawyer and criminologist at Fachhochschule Dortmund, is representing a prisoner at the Federal Constitutional Court in his constitutional complaint against the remuneration of work in the prison system. A case that she also discusses intensively with her students.
Hourly wages of between 1.30 and 2.30 euros are currently paid behind bars, only a fraction of the current minimum wage (9.82 euros). And working in prison does not earn a single pension point. Old-age poverty is often the result for former prisoners. "Many people are not aware of the reality of life in prison," says Christine Graebsch. "This also repeatedly causes irritation among my students." Yet the guardians of the constitution had already declared in 1998 that work is an important factor for resocialization. "And this also includes the recognition of work," emphasizes the academic, who researches and teaches at Fachhochschule Dortmund University of Applied Sciences and Arts on the subject of the penal system and resocialization.
Prisoners' rights" seminar
Professor Graebsch and her colleague Dr. Sven-Uwe Burkhardt discussed the current case before the Federal Constitutional Court intensively with the students in the social science seminar "Prisoners' Rights". The deputy professor also supports the lawyer in court. "We went through the various arguments in the seminar, because it is important to me that the teaching has this practical relevance for the students," emphasizes Prof. Graebsch. One conceivable model for fair recognition of work would be the gross principle, in which prison costs, maintenance and victim compensation could be deducted from the salary on a pro rata basis. A strong debt waiver for work performed could also be considered.
Christine Graebsch is hoping for clear words from Germany's highest constitutional court in the ruling, "which could at least get the debate about payment for prison work moving," she says in the interview. If resocialization is the task of prisons, then this must also be taken seriously. The verdict is expected in a few months.
Interview
Professor Graebsch, why are you arguing for better pay for the work of prisoners in the penal system? Is more money really needed behind bars - after all, food and accommodation are provided and paid for by the state?
Prof. Dr. Christine Graebsch: That's right, you get a bed, a toilet in the cell and food. But they have no choice when it comes to the latter, for example. If they want something else, they can buy additional supplies from the prison shop. He has a monopoly and charges higher prices than the supermarket outside. That is the reality. Prisoners also have to pay for electricity, telephone, coffee and toiletries or to be able to use a TV in their own cell. For all this, prisoners go to work for an hourly wage of one to two euros. And: more than half of this wage often goes towards debts - such as outstanding court costs. For most prisoners, the state is the main creditor.
But the people have been convicted and are now serving a sentence...
Prof. Graebsch: In the past, work in prison was also intended as a punishment, because work in the prison system has been around much longer than the principle of resocialization in the German constitution. Today, however, work is supposed to be part of resocialization. As early as 1998, the Federal Constitutional Court stated that the aim of work and remuneration for prisoners is to recognize the value of work for an independent, punishment-free life. I have never understood how anyone can recognize that with these wages. It's a contradiction in the system.
The prison system argues that prison work is not profitable and that higher wages would no longer be marketable. Is that not true?
Prof. Graebsch: It's the wrong approach. If resocialization is the task of the state, then the Business Studies of prison work are not relevant. In other words, if work is a factor of resocialization - and this very resocialization is a goal of imprisonment - then you can't say it's too expensive for us now.
What could alternatives to low wages look like?
Prof. Graebsch: There are other models that have also been discussed before the Federal Constitutional Court. In Austria, for example, prisoners receive more money, but have to use it to pay part of their prison costs. This so-called gross principle already exists in Germany for prisoners on release who are employed outside of prison or for prisoners who receive a pension. They also have to pay a contribution to prison costs. Possibilities for non-financial recognition of prisoner work would also include the forgiveness of debts for legal costs, the accumulation of pension entitlements or a reduction in the period of imprisonment.
Doesn't working in prison currently affect your future pension?
Prof. Graebsch: No. It was once planned in the 1970s, but was never implemented - for financial reasons. There were repeated attempts, but then responsibilities were shifted back and forth between the federal and state governments and in the end nothing happened. This is particularly relevant for long-term prisoners who have spent many years in prison. They are currently not entitled to a reduced earning capacity pension. Prisoners are only included in unemployment insurance.
The proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court were less about specific minimum wage rates and more about the term "recognition". Why?
Prof. Graebsch: For the most part, resocialization is currently just an excuse. But if we understand resocialization in a criminologically modern way that is appropriate to the current state of research, then we need to combine work with recognition. For example, it would make sense for prisoners to be able to pay maintenance obligations or victim compensation themselves from their wages. That makes a big difference, which we in social work call self-efficacy. It is a different experience when the money for the child comes from your own wages and not from the state. Above all, however, it also corresponds to the idea of dignity in the Basic Law to recognize work that has been done.
What do you hope to gain from the Federal Constitutional Court's ruling?
Prof. Graebsch: The court cannot prescribe a specific procedure or model, but can only explain which options for recognizing prison work are possible. The Federal Constitutional Court did this back in 1998, but little has changed to date. I hope that the court will find clear words that can at least get the debate on the remuneration of prisoners moving.