Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs Liisa Pakosta (Eesti 200) recently provided a brief overview of the potential options for utilizing prison infrastructure in the context of decreasing inmate numbers. The current choices regarding how to repurpose the vacated prison spaces will have long-term consequences, and reversing these decisions later will be costly and time-consuming.

Estonia's unique position

The Council of Europe conducts an annual assessment of the performance of European prison systems, providing valuable data for comparing ourselves with others. According to the latest SPACE report, Estonia's situation in Europe is unique.

For example, the report reveals that only four European countries have seen a decline in prisoner numbers of more than 5 percent annually. These countries are Estonia, Lithuania, Ireland and Greece. Over the past 20 years (2003-2023), the proportion of prisoners in the population has decreased the most in Ukraine, followed by Estonia. Out of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, 26 have seen a decrease in prisoner numbers, while 21 have experienced an increase.

The European average number of prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants is 124, while Estonia's figure, as reported earlier, was 150. This number has since changed, with Estonia now having 134 prisoners per 100,000 people. The continuation of this downward trend is also confirmed by the number of prison admissions per 100,000 inhabitants, where Estonia falls below the European average (94 admissions per 100,000 inhabitants, compared to the European average of 167).

However, what Estonia spends on prisons is modest by European standards, and we have relatively few prison officers. On average, there are 1.6 prisoners per officer in Europe, while Estonia's figure is 1.8, which is above the European average. By comparison, Norway has 0.7 prisoners per officer, Sweden has 0.8 and Finland 1.3. Despite this, Estonia is capable of contributing to internal security outside of prisons, a responsibility that these other countries do not typically assume.

Alternative uses of prison infrastructure

Estonia currently has around 3,000 beds in double-occupancy cells in closed prisons, with 50 percent of these occupied. This is an unprecedented situation for the country. From a scientific perspective, the best outcomes are achieved by transitioning to single-occupancy cells, which remains our long-term goal. However, it is clear that our capacity to fund prisons is limited, necessitating compromises.

There are alternative options available, including temporarily or permanently closing prisons, selling them or renting them out. Prisons are constructed with the expectation of being used for at least 30 years. In reality, our prison buildings are capable of remaining operational for even longer. It's important to note that these facilities were specifically built as prisons, not adapted from other infrastructure, which imposes certain limitations on future options.

Last fall, the National Audit Office suggested that the closure of some prison complexes should be considered. Building on this proposal, we partially closed Tartu Prison in July of this year and were forced to lay off a significant number of valuable internal security personnel.

The partial closure of Tartu Prison does not mean that we will not need the complex in the future. We still house convicted prisoners from the region there, maintain a 24-hour detention center service, operate a 60-bed open prison and run the prison's psychiatric department. Additionally, the facility provides 200 jobs.

If we pursue further closures, alternative solutions will need to be found for these operations, and we would lose those 200 contributors to internal security. This would also pose a significant challenge for the Police and Border Guard Board, as they would have to take back and reestablish the detention center service for the Southern Estonia region at a new location.

Selling prison buildings is always an option, but is it a wise one? There is precedent for older prisons being transferred to private ownership, such as Murru and Patarei prisons. However, finding suitable uses for these buildings has been rare, with the old Tallinn prison still unsold.

It's possible that newer infrastructure might have more potential uses and thus attract more interest. However, I doubt that the state would profit from such a transaction, although this might not be the primary concern, as the state's maintenance costs would decrease. What's crucial is ensuring that we won't need to reverse the deal in the future.

The main concern with selling prison infrastructure is the state's own needs for reserve space in various crises. The significant capability gap, where the state and municipalities lack the necessary alternative crisis facilities, was highlighted by the Ministry of Social Affairs' experience in housing war refugees. As is well known, they were placed on a ship at the cost of millions of euros. In times of conflict, there isn't enough reserve space in the private sector either, or it comes at a very high price. Thus, by giving up this infrastructure, we might be compromising our crisis resilience.

There has been some brief discussion about whether prisons might be needed in the event of a military conflict. If these facilities were to fall into private hands, this option would no longer be guaranteed. This is a risk that needs to be acknowledged to avoid a public debate later on about how such a situation came to pass.

One alternative to selling could be retaining the prison facilities and renting them out. There is precedent for this kind of intergovernmental cooperation in Europe. For instance, Norway temporarily rented prison spaces from the Netherlands between 2015 and 2018. The agreement ended when Norway no longer needed the additional prison capacity. Denmark, for example, is seeking to rent a 300-bed prison in Gjilan, Kosovo, along with its staff, and is financially supporting the preparation process.

Such solutions are therefore feasible. The cost of such rentals depends on the number of spaces and the agreed-upon conditions. Existing knowledge suggests that these agreements are generally profitable for the lessor and beneficial for local employment.

The rationale for looking to other countries is simple: the rise in prison sentences can be implemented swiftly through various political decisions, but infrastructure investments take years to materialize. Moreover, there is always the uncertainty that political directions might change, rendering long-term investments imprudent. We know this from our own experience – reforming our prison infrastructure took three decades, and it took nearly ten years to build the latest prison in Tallinn.

Interest in our prisons is strong. For instance, the United Kingdom has approached us because their shortage of prison spaces and overcrowding require urgent attention. Representatives from Sweden have also visited us, as their plan is to triple the number of prison places in the coming years. We also know that Finland is short of 500 prison places. Other countries have also expressed interest in learning about our activities to consider rental possibilities.

For a country renting out its prison facilities, it is a good opportunity to maintain its infrastructure and keep its qualified workforce ready and prepared. Whether we should pursue this path is a political decision that must be made.

Renting prison space to other countries is, of course, not without challenges. Bringing foreign criminals into Estonia would require changes in practices and public support. There would certainly be red lines that cannot be crossed, such as ensuring that these foreign prisoners do not gain freedom within Estonia. However, it is an option we should at least consider.

In summary

As a nation, we find ourselves at a crossroads as a result of our successful criminal justice policy reform, and it is reassuring to see that we have several options to consider. Each choice comes with long-term implications that must be carefully weighed.

We need a clear political consensus on what the future of our criminal policy will look like and how many prisoners we consider reasonable to maintain. The experiences of other European countries offer cautionary tales about how quickly the need for prison infrastructure can arise if political priorities shift.

Reversing the closure of prisons is also expensive and time-consuming. Naturally, even in the face of rising crime, it is possible to reduce the number of prison spaces. This would require clear political will to communicate to the broader public the positive impact of alternative sentences, such as serving time in an open society, and a widespread preference for such alternatives.

Uncertainty directly affects the work of the prison service. Prison officers, who are specially trained and motivated contributors to internal security, find themselves in a state of limbo: wondering if their careers will continue or if they need to seek new opportunities. This anxiety inevitably spills over into our daily operations.

A shortage of experts quickly lowers the quality of dealing with offenders, which in the long term undermines the safety of all of us and increases the workload in the law enforcement sector. This could, although it may not necessarily, mean a greater need for prison space in the future – space that, depending on the decisions we make now, may or may not be available.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!