Training of prison staff in the materials of the Penitentiary Commission of the St. Petersburg Law Society (for the ivth International Prison Congress of 1890)

Voloshin Denis Vladimirovich ORCID: 0000-0003-4409-155X PhD in Pedagogy Associate Professor at the Department of Organization of Personnel Management, and Social, Psychological and Educational Work of Tomsk Professional Training Institute for the Federal Penal Service Personnel 634057, Russia, Tomskaya oblast', g. Tomsk, ul. Govorova, 10 sdf111.voloshin@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Stepanova Dar'ya Yur'evna lecturer, Department of Organization of Operational Investigative Activities, Federal State Institution of Additional Professional Education "Tomsk Institute of Advanced Training of Employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service" 634057, Russia, Tomsk region, Tomsk, Govorova str., 10 sdf111.voloshin@yandex.ru

The IV International Prison Congress was held in St. Petersburg in June 1890, becoming the only penitentiary event of such significance held in the Russian Empire, Soviet Russia and the USSR. His decisions reflected not only the influence of such world-scale forums on the training of prison staff in Russia, but also the reverse process - the impact of Russian scientific thought on penitentiary issues on a global scale ^{[3, p. 10]}.

Its organization, of course, was preceded by the activities of many public and private organizations, officials and representatives of the scientific community. Among them were members of the St. Petersburg Law Society, who allocated a special penitentiary commission in their composition. Its chairman - the famous Russian legal scholar professor of the Imperial University of the Capital Ivan Yakovlevich Foynitsky (1847-1913) - became the first in the practice of domestic higher education, who (according to his own statement) in 1873 "opened a special course in prison studies at St. Petersburg University in the Faculty of Law" ^{[7, p. 35]}, introducing the term "prison studies" itself into Russian science ^[8].

The Penitentiary Commission of the St. Petersburg Law Society (hereinafter referred to as the Penitentiary Commission) presented materials (works) to the ivth International Prison Congress in the form of posed questions and corresponding answers-arguments ^[5]. One of which became the direct subject of the study, as representing an undoubted historical and pedagogical research interest in line with the retrospective of the training of domestic prison personnel.

The report on the fifth issue, according to the instructions of the Penitentiary Commission, was compiled under the leadership of I.Ya. Foynitsky. The question itself sounded like this: "On what grounds and in what ways would it be most profitable to ensure the replenishment of employees in prison institutions (directors, inspectors, economists, etc.)?". Thus, the answer was supposed to identify the grounds and the most effective ways of recruiting prison staff and their training.

Confirming the enormous "importance of the staff of the prison administration for the success of prison activities," the speaker stated that "the best personnel of the administration" will spend "the best efforts" to eliminate or level the "bad choice of terrain" for the prison ^{[1, p. 136]}. That is, the first basis for the implementation of the answer to the question posed is the territorial principle. Undoubtedly, the placement of a prison institution in the location of large settlements or highways will not only cope with most logistical features (for example, during staging), but also attract more trained persons interested in, for example, developed infrastructure, educational or career opportunities to the prison staff.

The Penitentiary Commission rightly believed that due to the complexity and severity of the prison service, it "should not be prolonged"; and in order to "achieve the goals of prison education", prison staff require "not only self-sacrifice" and appropriate financial remuneration, coupled with the official rank position, but also extensive special (professional) knowledge of all sides of the prison life – which was a burning issue of "prison policy" ^{[1, p. 139]}.

Speaking about the head of the prison administration – the director of the prison – the need for good advisers and deputies was recognized, without limiting the issue of prison staff exclusively to the personality and professionalism of the director. As stated in the report: "Bad subordinate staff binds the energy of the director, distorts his orders or does not execute them" ^{[1, p. 137]}.

Recognizing that "the prison concerns only one wing of its" officials, although they are part of the prison staff, but who perform non-administrative functions (doctors, teachers, housekeepers [i.e. financial and economic workers – auth.], clergy), the Penitentiary Commission considered it right to recruit them "from ready-made cadres of representatives of relevant professions".

The main link of the prison staff – warders – was awarded a very unpleasant characterization. "Standing on the same mental and even moral level with the prisoners," ignorant warders who do not understand the "high modern purpose of the prison" and the high mission of the "penitentiary minister" enter into illicit relations with prisoners, unknown to the prison management and "extremely undesirable from the point of view of the interests of prison education" ^{[1, p. 138]}.

Of research interest for understanding the role and place of the prison service of the time in question in the system of the state bureaucratic hierarchy is the establishment of a "reduced term for retirement pensions" proposed by the Penitentiary Commission, similar to those adopted in Russia for service "under the Department of public education". This position was argued by the fact that the prison service is very close to it "in terms of its difficulties and constant nervous excitement ... ^{[1, pp. 140-142]}. Here we see that pension benefits were primarily extended to employees of public education, probably as the most popular and socially more visible (significant) profession than prison employees. Currently, both of the above categories (teachers and employees of the penitentiary system of Russia) have long-service benefits that give the right to state pension provision.

The professional differences between the highest officials of the prison administration (directors and their assistants) and the "lower" (supervisory staff) predetermined the development of various models of their professional selection and training.

The replenishment of top prison officials, in view of their "comparative smallness", was recognized as possible provided they had "proper knowledge and the ability to apply them." Such knowledge was "solid general education". Whereas "the requirement of a certain professional education would significantly reduce the contingent of capable people." However, according to the Penitentiary Commission, "it would be useful" to supplement the education available to applicants with the study of the history and theory of punishments, as well as prison studies that would be "read" in special courses "at universities or other educational institutions and would be accessible to all outsiders who want to devote themselves to prison activities." Also, in addition to the theoretical base, "practical training is needed", organized in the form of an internship "at exemplary places of detention". So, according to the Penitentiary Commission, "the skill to prison activity" is acquired. In fact, the method of professional selection was established, elements of professional retraining were modeled and a personnel management reserve (also called "candidacy" in the text) was formed. An educational innovation was the fact that the "class of candidates for prison positions" was proposed by the leadership of the internship sites by the Penitentiary Commission to be included in "special lists" submitted to the prison department and "should serve ... as a basis for filling vacancies" ^{[1, pp. 140-141]}. At the same time, competitive examinations were deemed inappropriate ^{[1, p. 147]}.

The sources of recruitment for the positions of the supervisory staff were reduced to a simple search for persons willing to work in prison for an extremely small salary: "service in the positions of prison guards does not seem to be a tempting career" ^{[1, p. 144]}.

At the same time, it was "especially difficult to find people who were prepared in any way for the performance of the difficult and serious activity ahead of them." As a result, "the difficult task of forming the frame from which prison guards can be selected by the state is put forward in the first place." Since the domestic prison department did not have its own educational institutions and a unified state system for training prison staff, the Penitentiary Commission considered even very exotic ways of "educating such a cadre." By analogy with the public institutions of the Red Cross and the Sisters of Mercy, the idea of "establishing a special social and philanthropic order" was discussed, whose brethren would voluntarily devote themselves to "the high mission of serving the tasks of prison policy." However, "on closer examination", this idea was rejected for reasons of both the large number of guards in men's prisons and the unwillingness of the then Russian society to perceive and comprehend penitentiary (prison) problems, including the training of prison staff. The Penitentiary Commission stated that they are accessible "to the understanding of only a few, the most exalted minds" ^{[1, pp. 142-143]}. That is why it called on "the state itself to take care of the education of a suitable cadre," citing as an example the training schools for prison guards abroad. However, due to the insignificance of graduates of such schools and, on the contrary, the considerable time spent on their preparation, "it is impossible to expect a noticeable change" in the current staffing situation. The proposal of the Penitentiary Commission was, in their opinion, more practice-oriented and assumed to involve in prison guards "an extensive contingent of lower military ranks being released from military service" ^{[1, p. 145]}. This postulate, in general, corresponded to the "personnel concept" of the penitentiary department of the imperial time.In order to prepare "retired soldiers for prison positions," a "candidacy organization" was proposed, within the framework of which it would take place: familiarization of "every retiring person" with the opportunity to enroll in a special "list of candidates"; presentation of their prison administration; compliance with the order of invitation to occupy a vacant position in a certain area.

In general, such regulations were implemented only 20 years later and in relation to several other positions. On October 15, 1911, the Rules for granting the right to occupy positions in the prison department to those dismissed "after prolonged"military service" to sub-ensigns (sub-cornet), fleet conductors and lower ranks in excess of military service" were highly approved ^[4]. Their training was carried out by mandatory preliminary testing for 6 months (analogous to the modern probation period) in the position of assistant heads of prisons, which, according to the GTU, was supposed to "somewhat prepare selected candidates" specifically for prison service, including through "studying the current laws and regulations on the prison part, accounting rules and reporting on prison economy" ^{[9, p. 1046, 1048]}. For the sake of objectivity, we note that in the landmark for Russian science "The Doctrine of Punishment in connection with Prison Studies", published just a year before the IV International Prison Congress, its author I.Ya. Foynitsky bitterly summarized that "there is nothing to hope for the organization of prison staff through practical training in our prisons" ^{[6, p. 429]}.

Realizing that it is a dead end situation to form the cadres of prison posts exclusively from one source, the Penitentiary Commission proposed to include in their composition "persons of liberal professions who are knowledgeable in skills, which is not always found in the military element." The preparation of such categories of candidates, according to the plan of the Penitentiary Commission, "should be achieved not so much by creating special schools", taking into account the age of the persons involved in the service, "but mainly by practically accustoming them to the performance of upcoming" duties. The conditions for such "training" were: the implementation of training directly in prisons, while not only in the "central exemplary", but also in the "main cities" of the province, under experienced mentoring. The subsequent distribution of trained persons was supposed to be in prisons of the same regions ^{[1, p. 146]}.

As a conclusion, we note that the works of the Penitentiary Commission on the training of prison personnel caused the mutual influence of Russian scientific thought (largely due to the actual figure of I.Ya. Foynitsky as a scientist) on the recommendations of the ivth International Prison Congress regarding the professional training of penitentiary personnel. It was stated that the highest prison positions should be filled by persons who have completed a special theoretical course in prison studies and have consolidated their knowledge in practice at exemplary places of detention under the guidance of their superiors (in modern interpretation – who have completed an internship or practice in the relevant positions of practical bodies under the guidance of experienced mentors). For lower positions, "preparatory training" was provided: first of all, it is a practical prison service, capable, according to the opinions expressed in the decisions of the Congress, of replacing special schools for the training of lower prison staff ^{[2, p. 264]}. In general, the resolutions of the ivth International Prison Congress repeated or were semantically similar to the decisions of the penitentiary Commission of the St. Petersburg Law Society, expressed for the ivth International Prison Congress of 1890).