Insights on security and violence in European prisons

This blog written by PRI’s Global Policy Manager, Jérôme Mangelinckx, is the second of three in a series examining trends in European prisons. It is produced in collaboration with EuroPris as part of Penal Reform International’s Global Prison Trends 2024 which was published with the Thailand Institute of Justice. The blog provides an in-depth European analysis on security and violence in European prisons. drawing on data collected from prison administrations in 2024, among other sources.

Violence remains a pervasive issue in prisons in Europe, with far-reaching implications for the safety and well-being of both prisoners and staff. Rooted in systemic challenges such as overcrowding, understaffing, and the infiltration of organised crime, these issues manifest in various forms, including physical assaults, gang activity, and the abuse of power.

Research found that prison staff in Europe frequently face physical and verbal abuse. In recent years, some countries have experienced a noticeable increase in attacks, while others have reported a decline in such incidents. High-profile cases, such as the fatal ambush of prison officers in France, have sparked nationwide strikes demanding better security and pay. In Belgium, an assault on staff at their home led to similar calls for improved working conditions and better security of all prison staff both within and beyond the facilities they work in.

As highlighted in the first expert blog of this series, while challenges such as overcrowding are longstanding issues, their scale and impact seem to be escalating to alarming new heights across Europe. This in turn impacts levels of violence, both between prisoners and towards staff and also contributes to widespread burnout and diminishing control within facilities. This growing crisis not only jeopardises the safety and well-being of everyone involved but also undermines the prison system’s ability to operate a rehabilitative environment effectively.

Understanding violence in prison

In this blog post, we delve into a comprehensive analysis of prison security and violence levels, drawing on a survey conducted across Europe exploring the procedures and practices surrounding the recording of violent incidents and the use of force within European prisons, highlighting the prevalence and types of violence, as well as the disciplinary measures implemented. Although the data reveals varying trends and approaches to prison violence, it provides valuable insights into how different European prison systems manage and tackle security issues.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) classifies violence into three types: self-directed violence, interpersonal violence, and collective violence. In the prison context, this can mean anything from prisoner-on-prisoner or prisoner-on-staff violence to staff misuse of power or even systemic neglect.

Direct violence, like physical assaults, fights or bullying, is often the most visible. Psychological and sexual violence are comparatively more challenging to identify due to their inherent characteristics. Sexual violence, which frequently takes place in private settings or targets particularly vulnerable groups within prisons, can occur collectively and remain undetected, as evidenced by a recent case in Italy. Similarly, psychological violence, including bullying and emotional abuse, is difficult to discern due to the ambiguous nature of such behaviours. This presents significant obstacles to data collection and the development of evidence-based policies, particularly concerning children in detention, as research by PRI and partners shows.

Self-directed violence – self-harm or suicide – is another type of violence that is typically overlooked despite in the rates being higher in prisons compared to in the community. New research indicates that suicide rates among people in prison are higher in high-income countries with lower imprisonment rates, including those in Europe, compared to other regions, calling for a comprehensive and robust response. The same study highlights the gendered nature of this form of violence, revealing that women in prison experience disproportionately high mortality rates relative to the community from suicide.

Beneath the surface also lies structural violence, including inhumane treatment from poor detention conditions, overcrowding and discrimination. Additionally, cultural violence – whereby violence is normalised and justified through social norms and ideologies – further exacerbates the risks faced by both prisoners and staff. While prison staff frequently encounter violence and abuse, violence between detainees sometimes also remains unchecked, with staff occasionally tolerating or even exploiting such conflicts to maintain control. A 2024 report by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) highlighted serious concerns at one prison, citing allegations that some prisoners were permitted or instructed by staff to harm other detainees.

Prison subcultures, especially where gangs are dominant, may further justify and normalise the abuse. A recent trend witnessed in many countries in the region is the expanding influence of organised criminal networks within prisons. Members often orchestrate illicit operations and target vulnerable prisoners from whilst imprisoned. Moreover, the high prevalence and risk of violence among prisoners or against prison staff, the potential excessive force used by staff against prisoners, and the smuggling of contraband contribute to a climate of insecurity. In one prison in England and Wales, around 136 gangs are active, with about half of all prisoners having a gang affiliation. In France, a prisoner with ties to a gang escaped in an ambush while being transferred, killing two staff members and injuring three others.

Recording violent incidents in European prisons

Our research assessed practices with recording and documentation of violent incidents and the use of force in prisons. All 14 prison administrations that responded to our survey reported that they keep records of violent incidents; however significant variations exist between countries in terms of the levels of incidents recorded, the purpose of such records, and how the information is collated. In some cases, records are maintained only at the individual facility level, while others compile data nationally. This disparity makes direct comparison of the data from different countries challenging.

According to our research, Spain places a strong emphasis on recording violent incidents against staff members, with the main purpose of identifying prisoners who may require stricter control measures. Slovakia takes a different approach, maintaining records of violent incidents with severe harm that need medical treatment resulting in more than seven days off work. These records also include attacks on prison staff or other staff of the prison administration, whether on or off duty.

Different methods of recording incidents are also observed. Sweden employs both statistical data and detailed analyses of incidents. Meanwhile, France conducts a monthly survey of incidents, and Georgia retains video footage of violent events, including those involving the use of force. Catalonia and Georgia have specific regulations governing the recording of violent incidents, while in Norway, all incidents are escalated through the chain of command. These differences in record-keeping underscore the varied approaches to documenting violence in prisons across Europe while stressing a lack of uniformity that can lead to difficulties in data comparison and analysis. Independent monitoring of prison violence is essential due to its pervasive and opaque nature. National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) play a key role in improving understanding by leveraging their access to prisons to gather diverse perspectives and data from various stakeholders.

The frequency and nature of violent incidents, as well as the proportion of attacks on staff compared to inter-prisoner violence, varied significantly among European countries. For example, Ukraine reported 1,124 violent incidents over the past three years, with only 21 (less than 2%) of these being directed at staff members. This period also saw a 14% increase in violent incidents between 2021 and 2023. In contrast, Estonia reported 98 violent incidents directed towards staff in 2022, while incidents between prisoners amounted to 267 in the same year.

Several countries, including Sweden, have noted an increase in violence against staff in recent years, often linked to factors such as overcrowding, increased prisoner populations, and reduced staffing levels rather than any significant shift in prisoners’ attitudes towards staff. Inter-prisoner violence has also been on the rise in countries like Catalonia and Croatia.

In France, verbal abuse of staff appears to be more common than physical violence, although verbal abuse is less frequently documented. Norway reported a notably high number of violent incidents against staff, with 210 such cases in 2022, compared to 293 incidents of prisoner-on-prisoner violence. Luxembourg also experienced a sharp increase in prisoner-on-prisoner violence, with incidents rising from 71 in 2021 to 178 in 2023. This surge is likely due to the opening of a new prison facility in 2023. The analysis reveals a significant variation in violent incidents across countries, with factors such as prison overcrowding or staffing shortages influencing both the frequency of prisoner-on-prisoner violence and attacks on staff, though in some jurisdictions verbal abuse remains a more prevalent issue than physical violence.

Slovakia presented very few incidents of violence directed at on-duty staff (averaging one per year). However, the number of recorded attacks on off-duty staff was relatively higher, with 13 such incidents reported over the past three years, making Slovakia the only country to officially report this type of violence.

Disciplinary measures and the use of force in prisons

Disciplinary measures imposed for violent behaviour in prisons also vary widely across jurisdictions. The severity of sanctions depends on the nature of the incident and can range from warnings and enhanced control measures to solitary confinement and transfers to higher-security facilities.

Estonia and France often use confinement to punishment cells, with sentences ranging from 14 to 30 days. However, exceeding the minimum number of days permitted for solitary confinement risks causing psychological harm and constituting ill-treatment, – a 15-day limit has been set by the UN Nelson Mandela Rules, while the European Prison Rules mention that it may only be used in exceptional cases and for a specified period, which must be as short as possible. Spain, for example, uses both solitary confinement and the transfer of prisoners to more secure facilities. In contrast, Sweden and Ukraine favour deferred parole and enhanced control measures, such as transfers to high-security prisons, over more punitive sanctions.

The number of disciplinary actions taken in response to violent incidents varies as well. In Slovenia, 50% of all disciplinary measures are related to violent incidents, whereas in France, the average is 46%. By comparison, only 19% of disciplinary actions in Georgia and 6% in Luxembourg are linked to violent incidents, indicating a significant difference in how violence is addressed within each jurisdiction.

The use of force in European prisons has shown both upward and downward trends over the past three years. Countries such as Catalonia, Spain and Luxembourg have seen an increase in the use of force, while Slovakia and Ukraine have reported a decline. Swedish authorities do not maintain records specifically on the use of force, except for the use of pepper spray, and while prison staff in France are required to document such incidents, there is no national collation of these records. The varying approaches to documenting the use of force further complicate efforts to analyse and compare practices across jurisdictions. This lack of standardised reporting hinders transparency and makes it difficult to hold prison staff accountable for unlawful violence. An independent monitoring mechanism is essential to identify trends and ensure transparency and accountability.

Responses to reduce violence in prisons

Our survey showed that, in response to the rise in prison violence, many European countries have introduced various initiatives aimed at reducing tensions and improving security. These initiatives include social skills training for prisoners, communication training for staff, rehabilitation programmes, and efforts to increase staff numbers. Introducing harmonised data collection and analysis systems monitoring the outcomes of these approaches at European level is essential to demonstrate their success and, consequently, ensure their sustainability and applicability in other jurisdictions.

Latest trends show that efforts to combat violence in European prisons increasingly involve technological advancements and holistic strategies. France’s 2023 national anti-violence plan includes enhanced staff support, violence audits, incident management training, and improved equipment. Similarly, drone detection technology trials in Scotland aim to curtail the smuggling of contraband, a growing source of violence. Moreover, Ireland’s success with conflict awareness and peer mediation programmes highlights the importance of addressing interpersonal disputes constructively.

By integrating security with rehabilitative and preventative approaches, European prisons can better manage violence. Dynamic security, for example, fosters safety through professional, respectful staff-prisoner relationships, requiring well-trained personnel and continuous ethical training. Emphasising clear communication and humane treatment, it reduces violence by addressing prisoners’ concerns and minimising situations that may lead to conflict. By relying on strong interpersonal interactions, this approach helps create an environment that is both manageable and less prone to unrest, though it remains challenging in overcrowded prisons.

A way forward…

Addressing violence in European prisons requires a multi-faceted approach that recognises the complexity and interconnectedness of its underlying causes. Systemic challenges and structural violence stemming from issues like overcrowding, understaffing, and the influence of organised crime not only exacerbate tensions but also hinder effective rehabilitation efforts. While variations in recording practices and disciplinary measures across jurisdictions highlight the diversity of responses, the need for uniform data collection and analysis and independent monitoring remains critical for informed policymaking.

Promising initiatives, such as dynamic security approaches and conflict resolution programmes, underscore the importance of fostering constructive relationships and enhancing staff training to mitigate violence. Ultimately, achieving sustainable safety and security in prisons requires a balance between prevention strategies, technological advancements and rehabilitative interventions, ensuring the humane treatment of all individuals within the system.