These guidelines were then supported by in-depth research in the field of good judicial practice, with cross references to data on national best practices in the countries where the legal research laboratories took place, as well as the analysis of the standards, practices and policies of the European Union and international bodies. The results of this complex work of comparative analysis show national variables that differ from country to country, but also a series of other common elements, which may be useful for founding a harmonious project to counter penitentiary radicalisation with a European perspective and an entirely new approach. Our effort in this part of the work has focused on trying to provide a common basis for preventive, investigative and analytical practices, despite the diversity of judicial contexts in different countries and procedural differences, which in some cases are markedly different.

Participants in the different legal research labs and ‘living labs’ identified four critical elements: (a) the lack of legal, conceptual or theoretical models explaining how individuals pass through the dynamic process of radicalisation; (b) how they relate to violence and terrorism, i.e. what is the ‘nexus’ radicalising-terrorism, and consequently, (c) what is the most appropriate legal and judicial strategy for prevention and counteraction; (d) technology, and in particular new digital and communication tools, have been identified as the means by which to innovate prevention and experiment new approaches to disengagement.

Handbook on Prison Police and Security 

Part I: analyses prison observation models in various countries. Particular attention is paid to the Italian model, where the prison observation on the phenomenon of radicalisation is combined with the pre-existing prison regulations reformed between the ’70s and ’80s. The work shows an ideal and programmatic tension, which does not always correspond to actual practice, between the principles of security and the legal guarantees of the prisoners, which underpinned the Italian reform of 1975. The Danish model, used as an element of comparison, presents social and multidisciplinary characteristics completely different to those of Italy. In this way, we have described the two different models of prevention present in different forms and degrees in all member countries.

Part II: attempts to construct a standard model of preventive analysis, starting from the presupposition that the prevention of radicalisation, even if it is not a crime, requires a solid legal and procedural basis, in line with the most recent jurisprudence of the Court of Human Rights and the doctrine emerging in Europe on the differentiation of social, administrative and legal prevention models.

Part III: in the last part, the work defines experimental guidelines for a new digital forensic penitentiary, starting from experiences experienced through specific cases and technological simulation work in the ELPeF laboratory.

Follow Us

Share This