Siyasi Mahkumiyet ve Kapatma Tekniğinin Etik Sorunları

Abstract

This dissertation aims to demonstrate that, contrary to the common claim, incarceration is not rehabilitative, yet it continues to be used by governments in a tactical manner, especially in the case of political prisoners. The notion of a rehabilitative system of punishment gained momentum with the Enlightenment in the 18th and 19th centuries. However, since the 1960s, views that call for harsher sanctions on criminals have re- emerged. As a result of the commodification of crime control and security, the provision of public order being a material of politicians' election campaigns, and the rising conservatism adopting harsh policies against the lower classes, immigrants and marginalized groups, there has been a regression in the punishment mentality. Relatedly, the literature on the effects of incarceration on an individual's mental health has revealed that punishment is far from rehabilitative, causing and/or triggering Axis 1 disorders, mood, anxiety and substance use disorders being at the top of the list. This study, based on this literature, claims that the side effects of incarceration on the individual's mental health are the manifestation of the regression in the punishment mentality, and behind this regression lies the governments’ desire to instrumentalize political conviction, which makes political prisoners more disadvantaged compared to other prisoners. The treatment of political prisoners functions to intimidate and manipulate political opponents and prevent them from becoming radicalized and mobilized. In order to make this attitude intimidating, political prisoners are subjected to harsher sanctions, such as solitary confinement and addtitonal ill-treatment. Political formations, ideological, ethnic or religious groups that governments do not approve of are controlled by criminalizing their members. In this respect, the instrumentalization of political conviction and the regression in the punishment mentality have coacted.