Behind bars, beyond justice: confronting corruption in the prison system

In this expert blog for Penal Reform International, Sofie Arjon Schütte analyses the phenomenon of corruption in prisons, fuelled by severe power imbalances, limited oversight, and widespread overcrowding, creating conditions ripe for bribery, extortion, and abuse – particularly against vulnerable groups. Despite growing human rights attention, prison corruption remains under-addressed. This blog urges the anti-corruption community to view prisons not as the end of justice, but as institutions in urgent need of reform and accountability.

Corruption in prisons is essentially the same as corruption elsewhere: the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. Procurement schemes, contraband smuggling, and special privileges follow familiar corrupt logics. What distinguishes prisons is their closed-off environment – one marked by deprivation of liberty, stark power asymmetries, and minimal external scrutiny. 

In such settings, the variables in Klitgaard’s corruption formula (corruption = monopoly + discretion – accountability) become exponentially magnified. Prison staff and authorities hold a monopoly on force, exercise wide discretion over the provision or denial of basic services and operate with limited oversight. This creates fertile ground for corruption and is aggravated in cases of overcrowded prisons. 

Overcrowding and systemic vulnerabilities 

At the end of 2022, the global prison population was 11.5 million, of which almost half were imprisoned in Asia and a third in the Americas. Across the globe, over 60 per cent of countries manage prisons that consistently exceed their intended capacity (UNODC 2024). Overcrowded prisons and understaffing demotivate staff and encourage “parallel coping mechanisms” – a euphemism for bribery and extortion (UNODC 2013). The scarcity of space and resources fuels corruption: people in prison pay bribes for access to beds, food, medicine, visits, or simply to avoid mistreatment. Importantly, corruption in prisons often overlaps with discrimination. Vulnerable groups – including women, LGBTI+ persons, and  people living in poverty – are disproportionately harmed by corrupt practices that affect access to healthcare, safety, and rehabilitation opportunities. 

Peru offers a stark case. In Lurigancho and Miguel Castro prisons, extreme overcrowding (204% and 401% respectively) has enabled parallel illicit economies, with mobile phones as one of the most prized commodities. Phones are smuggled in through visitors, contractors, and even prison staff – incentivised by low wages, overwork, and high levels of impunity. Authorities know this, but limited technology, poor training, and insufficient sanctions mean enforcement remains weak (Loureiro Revilla 2024). 

Similarly, in Indonesia, harsh sentencing laws and poor legal aid contribute to overcrowding (prison population exceeds nearly twice its capacity) and exacerbate corruption risks. People in prison may pay bribes for better cell placements, remissions, or early release. The Indonesian Corruption Eradication Commission identified corruption vulnerabilities across procurement, sentence management, and placement of people in prison (Schütte, Wening and Maulana 2025). 

Indonesia’s “Integrity Zones” initiative, for instance, certifies prisons as “corruption-free” based on reforms like digital visitor logs, improved grievance systems, and standardised procedures. Yet, as of 2024, these reforms cover only one in four prisons and lack independent evaluation. Certification does not guarantee reduced corruption – without transparency and external oversight, integrity remains aspirational (Schütte, Wening and Maulana 2025). 

A newly established Ministry of Immigration and Corrections, in late 2024, brought structural changes, including a new directorate dedicated to internal compliance. Ongoing efforts aim to introduce non-custodial sentencing measures and to reform pre-trial detention policies to reduce overcrowding. 

 The need for broader criminal justice reform to tackle corruption in prisons is not unique to Indonesia. Non-custodial alternatives, such as community-based sanctions or asset forfeiture, can relieve overcrowding and reduce opportunities for rent-seeking. Preventing corruption in the prison system requires both systemic reforms, such as the decriminalisation of minor offences, and targeted integrity measures (e.g. staff vetting and improved remuneration, transparent procurement processes, and independent oversight). 

Institutional reform and monitoring  

Despite the growing international attention to prison conditions through human rights frameworks like the Mandela Rules, corruption remains under-addressed.  

To provide a tool for those already engaged in prison monitoring from a broader human rights lens, U4 and PRI jointly developed a practical tool titled Corruption in prisons: A guide for detention monitors (2024). As detention monitors can play a critical role in addressing prison corruption, the Guide urges them to treat corruption as a systemic risk factor – one that affects both human rights and the administration of justice. Risks arise not just from staff but also from contractors and suppliers. Staff vulnerability – due to poor pay, weak training, and dangerous working conditions – must be recognised as part of the corruption ecosystem. 

Detention monitors hold a unique  position, granting them direct access to prisons where they can document evidence of corruption. Their role extends beyond observing — they can advocate for change, inform evidence-based policies, and push for reform. By fostering dialogue with authorities, promoting whistleblowing systems, calling for independent investigations, and contributing to legal and policy development, they can help foster greater transparency and accountability in prison governance. 

But it cannot be the task of existing monitoring mechanisms alone to highlight corruption vulnerabilities in prisons and to develop solutions. In recent years, we have seen slow convergence of human rights and anti-corruption approaches, with most of the initiatives still coming from the human rights community (e.g. Prasad and Eckeloo 2019; IACHR 2019; Raoul Wallenberg Institute 2018). It is time for the anti-corruption community to step up and engage in discussion, research and practice and see what we (the author considers herself a member of that community) can contribute to much-needed criminal justice reforms.  

A call to the anti-corruption community: Prisons are not the end of justice 

Despite the scale of the problem, academic and policy attention to corruption in prisons has been limited. As Barrington et al. noted in 2021, corruption is often a secondary concern in prison studies, and empirical research remains heavily skewed toward the US, UK, and Australia. The anti-corruption field has traditionally focused on punishing corruption through imprisonment, without interrogating what actually happens inside places of detention.  A longstanding paradigm in the anti-corruption community has been the pursuit of ending impunity by securing lengthy prison sentences for individuals involved in large-scale economic crimes. What happens within prison walls has been of surprisingly little concern for anti-corruption activists.  

It is time for the anti-corruption community to stop viewing prisons as the endpoint of justice and instead treat them as vulnerable institutions where corruption thrives – and where reforms must begin.