| | Introductie | Nieuws | Contact | Steun & Adressen | Teksten | Achtergrond | Dossiers | |
Twenty five years of hard labour regulated by law in Germany.
by Thomas-Meyer Falk
The author of this introduction is currently imprisoned himself in a
jail in Germany. Although he is kept in strict isolation, he is
supposed to do hard labour. During daytime he is supposed to do
piece-work in an empty isolation-cell while in the evenings he could
rest in the isolation cell next door. An idea which he refused, but
which led him to deal with the subject "hard labour in the treatment of
(alleged) criminals in Germany" again.
A. History
In the "Grundgesetz" (introduced in Germany instead of a constitution) which came into effect in the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949 it is stated in article 12, paragraph 3, that hard labour (the German word "Zwangsarbeit" is used directly in the text) may be applied in the case of imprisonment that has been confirmed by a court. Hard labour before 1949 shall be left aside here (especially that applied in the period between 1933 and 1945 in work camps and concentration camps), although the convent which created the "Grundgesetz" in 1948 was aware of the historical meaning of the compulsion to work. The goal of this law is said to have been: to make sure to avoid violations of people's dignity by enforcing certain methods of work, as is common in totalitarian states (cf. "Entscheidungssammlung des Bundesverfassungsberichts", vol. 74, 102, 108). The insinuation is that it is hard labour that really gives sense to the detainment. Until 1976 hard labour was not worked out in detail in the law. On January 1st, 1977, the "Strafvollzugsgesetz" (law on how to carry out sentences) was put into practice. It named certain criteria for hard work (see under paragraph "B"), e. g. a claim to payment: starting with 5% of the average gross earnings of workers and employees, then gradually rising to 40%. In the course of time the comparatively boring tasks were reduced, such as glueing bags, and were replaced by apprenticeships in handicrafts. The main part of the sales, however, is still made by such kinds of piece-work.
In 1998 the High Court ("Bundesverfassungsgericht") jugded, without a proper explanation, that hard labour is still appropriate, if it is paid adequately (BVerfGE vol. 98, 169pp). Following this decision, Parliament decided to raise the payment from 5% to 9% by January 1st, 2001 - i. e. from about 5,50 to about 10 . Note that this is the payment per working day, not per hour!
B. Legal foundations
aa. European Law
In the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights it is stated in Article 4, paragraph 3, letter a, that the general prohibition of hard labour does not apply to people who are lawfully imprisoned. The Commission for the Protection of Human Rights decided in the 1960s that there is no claim for payment.
bb. German Law
According to §§37 to 45 of the "Strafvollzugsgesetz", which are in practice since January 1st, 1977, prisoners shall be given work, training and further qualification in order to develop, maintain or promote abilities enabling them to work after they are released. In doing this, the prison institutions shall make sure that the hard labor be (quote) "economically productive" (cf. §37 Abs. 2 StrVollzGes). The regulations concerning the safety of the working conditions which are valid in the "free" working sphere are to be respected. Prisoners who have worked for one year get 24 days off from work. Until the judgement of the High Court on 1st of July, 1998, the prisoners were granted "pocket money" of 100 per month for their hard labour. The High Court considered this too low, for it failed to give the prisoners enough of a feeling for the value and sense of their work. The legislative body was given a deadline until December 31st, 2000, to change this status quo.
While Parliament (under the leadership of the Social Democrats and the Green Party) aimed at an increase to 15% of the average gross income of the "free" citizens, the federal states put through their plan of an increase to only 10 per day, which results in about 200 per month. A basis for comparisons may be the fact that inmates of homes have a claim to 100 per month without having to work for that money.
C. Criticism of hard labour
According to the author hard labour of prisoners is a violation of human dignity and is in line with the global strategy of companies and governments which wants people to be the least possible self-determined and confident, but rather controlled externally and living at the edge of existence, in order to maintain the ruling conditions of power and violence.
aa. Human dignity
Article 1 paragraph 1 of the "Grundgesetz" states that human dignity must not be violated. The task of all state power is to respect and protect this dignity.
The heart of human dignity is, however, questioned if people are subjected to an order under which the last thing they own, i. e. their labor, is forcefully taken from them. If you don't obey to hard labor, you are harshly punished by the administration of justice. The author of this article, for example, gets a reduced right of freedom of information and education. He must not own a T. V., nor may he participate in a remote study course. The opportunities for sanctions are even much broader: the prisoners refusing hard labour automatically don't get pocket money, which those who are ill or very old do get (about 30 per month). Prisoners who are not kept in isolation, like the author (in his case for "safety reasons"), can and will be isolated (for reasons of "discipline").
Besides, some lawyers also hold that hard labor in the German "justice system" is a violation of human dignity (cf. Prof. em. Bemmann in the magazine "Strafverteidiger" 1998, pp. 604 - 605).
bb. Global component
In the U.S., but also in Great Britain more and more prisons are being privatized, taken over by large companies for "safety technologies", which are only interested in maximizing their profits. In Germany there are similar plans, e. g. by the federal government of Hessen and by some companies.
Daily life in the prisons reflects the conditions in the so-called "free" society! Prisoners are not being trained at highly modern machines; they are not given all opportunities to get higher qualifications which would enable them to work outside the low-wage-sector after their release from prison. (By the way: even the otherwise often rightly critized U. S. give prisoners more or less opportunies to acquire numerous academic titles.)
In the face of rising unemployment and the debate on how much "right to laziness" a person has we have to ask for the ethical-moral justification of states to demand hard labour from prisoners as well as free citizens. The author holds that there is no legitimation for hard labor; rather, under the pretext of social-ethical motives a reservoir of workers is kept "on supply", so that the ruling conditions of violence may (can) not be destabilized. For people who have to work hard for eight hours per day don't often develop (simply speaking) "silly thoughts" from the point of view of the ruling class.
As long as the wages, or the money paid in prisons for hard labour, are just sufficient for survival, people can afford a few small pleasures, and the stomach doesn't ache from hunger, so long the majority of workers and - unfortunately - of prisoners keeps quiet.
For the abolition of hard labour! Against oppression! For freedom and self-determination!
A. History
In the "Grundgesetz" (introduced in Germany instead of a constitution) which came into effect in the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949 it is stated in article 12, paragraph 3, that hard labour (the German word "Zwangsarbeit" is used directly in the text) may be applied in the case of imprisonment that has been confirmed by a court. Hard labour before 1949 shall be left aside here (especially that applied in the period between 1933 and 1945 in work camps and concentration camps), although the convent which created the "Grundgesetz" in 1948 was aware of the historical meaning of the compulsion to work. The goal of this law is said to have been: to make sure to avoid violations of people's dignity by enforcing certain methods of work, as is common in totalitarian states (cf. "Entscheidungssammlung des Bundesverfassungsberichts", vol. 74, 102, 108). The insinuation is that it is hard labour that really gives sense to the detainment. Until 1976 hard labour was not worked out in detail in the law. On January 1st, 1977, the "Strafvollzugsgesetz" (law on how to carry out sentences) was put into practice. It named certain criteria for hard work (see under paragraph "B"), e. g. a claim to payment: starting with 5% of the average gross earnings of workers and employees, then gradually rising to 40%. In the course of time the comparatively boring tasks were reduced, such as glueing bags, and were replaced by apprenticeships in handicrafts. The main part of the sales, however, is still made by such kinds of piece-work.
In 1998 the High Court ("Bundesverfassungsgericht") jugded, without a proper explanation, that hard labour is still appropriate, if it is paid adequately (BVerfGE vol. 98, 169pp). Following this decision, Parliament decided to raise the payment from 5% to 9% by January 1st, 2001 - i. e. from about 5,50 to about 10 . Note that this is the payment per working day, not per hour!
B. Legal foundations
aa. European Law
In the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights it is stated in Article 4, paragraph 3, letter a, that the general prohibition of hard labour does not apply to people who are lawfully imprisoned. The Commission for the Protection of Human Rights decided in the 1960s that there is no claim for payment.
bb. German Law
According to §§37 to 45 of the "Strafvollzugsgesetz", which are in practice since January 1st, 1977, prisoners shall be given work, training and further qualification in order to develop, maintain or promote abilities enabling them to work after they are released. In doing this, the prison institutions shall make sure that the hard labor be (quote) "economically productive" (cf. §37 Abs. 2 StrVollzGes). The regulations concerning the safety of the working conditions which are valid in the "free" working sphere are to be respected. Prisoners who have worked for one year get 24 days off from work. Until the judgement of the High Court on 1st of July, 1998, the prisoners were granted "pocket money" of 100 per month for their hard labour. The High Court considered this too low, for it failed to give the prisoners enough of a feeling for the value and sense of their work. The legislative body was given a deadline until December 31st, 2000, to change this status quo.
While Parliament (under the leadership of the Social Democrats and the Green Party) aimed at an increase to 15% of the average gross income of the "free" citizens, the federal states put through their plan of an increase to only 10 per day, which results in about 200 per month. A basis for comparisons may be the fact that inmates of homes have a claim to 100 per month without having to work for that money.
C. Criticism of hard labour
According to the author hard labour of prisoners is a violation of human dignity and is in line with the global strategy of companies and governments which wants people to be the least possible self-determined and confident, but rather controlled externally and living at the edge of existence, in order to maintain the ruling conditions of power and violence.
aa. Human dignity
Article 1 paragraph 1 of the "Grundgesetz" states that human dignity must not be violated. The task of all state power is to respect and protect this dignity.
The heart of human dignity is, however, questioned if people are subjected to an order under which the last thing they own, i. e. their labor, is forcefully taken from them. If you don't obey to hard labor, you are harshly punished by the administration of justice. The author of this article, for example, gets a reduced right of freedom of information and education. He must not own a T. V., nor may he participate in a remote study course. The opportunities for sanctions are even much broader: the prisoners refusing hard labour automatically don't get pocket money, which those who are ill or very old do get (about 30 per month). Prisoners who are not kept in isolation, like the author (in his case for "safety reasons"), can and will be isolated (for reasons of "discipline").
Besides, some lawyers also hold that hard labor in the German "justice system" is a violation of human dignity (cf. Prof. em. Bemmann in the magazine "Strafverteidiger" 1998, pp. 604 - 605).
bb. Global component
In the U.S., but also in Great Britain more and more prisons are being privatized, taken over by large companies for "safety technologies", which are only interested in maximizing their profits. In Germany there are similar plans, e. g. by the federal government of Hessen and by some companies.
Daily life in the prisons reflects the conditions in the so-called "free" society! Prisoners are not being trained at highly modern machines; they are not given all opportunities to get higher qualifications which would enable them to work outside the low-wage-sector after their release from prison. (By the way: even the otherwise often rightly critized U. S. give prisoners more or less opportunies to acquire numerous academic titles.)
In the face of rising unemployment and the debate on how much "right to laziness" a person has we have to ask for the ethical-moral justification of states to demand hard labour from prisoners as well as free citizens. The author holds that there is no legitimation for hard labor; rather, under the pretext of social-ethical motives a reservoir of workers is kept "on supply", so that the ruling conditions of violence may (can) not be destabilized. For people who have to work hard for eight hours per day don't often develop (simply speaking) "silly thoughts" from the point of view of the ruling class.
As long as the wages, or the money paid in prisons for hard labour, are just sufficient for survival, people can afford a few small pleasures, and the stomach doesn't ache from hunger, so long the majority of workers and - unfortunately - of prisoners keeps quiet.
For the abolition of hard labour! Against oppression! For freedom and self-determination!