The penal system is one of the most direct manifestations of the power of the state, but is often also a revealing reflection of the national psyche and the public’s attitude to punishment and rehabilitation. Surprisingly, for a prosperous, progressive Western democracy, the UK has a lamentable penal record. Britain’s prison population is currently in excess of 60,000 (up 50 per cent from a decade ago) making it the second largest in Europe. The average cost of keeping an individual prisoner incarcerated for a year is £27,000 (ten times the average expenditure on a secondary school pupil in the state sector). Despite such substantial investment, over half of British prisoners re-offend within two years of release.

Such high rates of recidivism is a serious problem. It means that the prison population is continuing to grow at an alarming rate (recently by as many as 700 a week), so overcrowding is endemic, hampering opportunities for education and rehabilitation and lowering staff and prisoner morale. To ease this pressure, the UK government is investing in the prison estate at historic levels, with 12,000 new prison places proposed within the next few years. Yet, like their nineteenth-century predecessors, Britain’s ‘new Victorian’ prisons are designed for security and control rather than for the rehabilitation and education which is increasingly recognised as what prisoners need. Most are poorly educated young men under 30 (at least 60 per cent of whom are functionally illiterate and innumerate), so without education and skills few will be able to build meaningful lives away from crime, no matter how often they go to prison, or how long they spend there.

Any transformation of the penal system must start with the redesign of prison buildings. Prison architecture has a clearly discernible effect on behaviour, operational efficiency, interaction and morale. Last year, architects Buschow Henley were commissioned by a think tank organisation working with the Home Office Prison Service to research and develop an alternative prison model that focuses more intensely on rehabilitation through a concentrated programme of intellectual, physical and social education. The model is not intended as a blueprint but rather a series of principles that might be adapted to support the wider concept of the ‘Learning Prison’ in which other aspects such as organisation, management and funding would obviously play a part. Key to this is the introduction of a system that groups together prisoners in small communities or ‘houses’ of between 30 and 40 inmates. This has two important consequences. First, the more compact spatial organisation of the house reduces staff time spent on supervising and escorting prisoners. Second, the system places educational and other facilities at the heart of the building, within easy reach at all times of day, reinforced by a supportive social environment. This model also enables resources to be dramatically redeployed, from a current estimated ratio of 80:20 (costs of security versus rehabilitation) to a predicted reversed figure of 20:80, freeing up much-needed funds to invest in educational programmes, thereby helping to promote rehabilitation, reduce recidivism and initiate a virtuous cycle.

In Buschow Henley’s scheme, the proposed group size of 30-40 has the potential for social accountability – each prisoner being known within the community and personally accountable for his behaviour. Houses are semi-autonomous, not just dormitories, with communal, as opposed to centralised, facilities. Circulation is simplified and reduced. Buildings are arranged in a chess-board formation, as opposed to pavilions marooned in space, each with a discrete external area that can be productively used for sport, games or gardening with a minimum of supervision.

Individual cells are replanned to make them less like domestic lavatories and more conducive to learning. In an inversion of the conventional layout, the bed is placed lengthways along the external wall at a higher level, freeing up space below. Storage is built next to where they sleep and each inmate is provided with a moveable table equipped with electronic tools for study. Washing facilities are contained in a small adjoining space (included in the basic 8 sqm allowance) so reducing pressure on prison staff to manage inmate hygiene and ablution. Each cell is paired with a neighbouring ‘buddy’ cell linked by sliding doors controlled by individual prisoners to mitigate the risk of self-harm.

While this new type of prison appears to be somewhat liberal, the arrangement of spaces and functions both inside and out is actually tightly controlled. Paradoxically, however, this proscription enables a greater range of activities to take place, and makes general supervision easier. In this environment the prisoners are judged not by their degree of conformity, but by the scope of their activities and achievements, so laying the foundations for genuine rehabilitation. As Martin Narey, Director General of the UK Prison Services observes, ‘We have got to accept that prison must be a humane and constructive place, not least because all but 23 of my population are going home some day.

1) Accredited Programmes may allow all individuals with Down Syndrome to continue in most Special Olympics sports training and competition activities. However, such individuals shall not be permitted to participate in sport training and competitions which, by their nature, result in hyperextension, radical flexion or direct pressure on the neck or upper spine. Such sports training and competition activities include: the butterfly stroke and diving starts in swimming, diving, pentathlon, high jump, equestrian sports, artistic gymnastics, soccer, alpine skiing and any warm-up exercise placing undue stress on the head and neck.

2) Restriction from participation in the above-listed activities shall continue until an individual with Down Syndrome has been examined (including X-ray views of full extension and flexion of the neck) by a physician who has been briefed on the nature of the Atlantoaxial Instability condition, and the results of such an examination demonstrate that the individual does not have the Atlantoaxial Instability condition.

3) For any individual diagnosed as having Atlantoaxial Instability condition, the examining physician shall notify the athlete’s parents or guardians of the nature and extent of the individual’s condition and such athlete shall be allowed to participate in the activities listed in 1) above only if the athlete submits written certification from two physicians combined with an acknowledgment of the risks signed by the adult athlete or his/her parent or guardian if the athlete is a minor.

Today, one in every 50 human beings is a migrant worker, a refugee or asylum seeker, or an immigrant living in a foreign country. Current estimates by the United Nations and the International Organisation for Migration indicate that some 150 million people live temporarily or permanently outside their countries of origin (2.5% of the world population). Many of these, 80-97 million, are estimated to be migrant workers with members of their families. Another 12 million are refugees outside their country of origin. These figures do not include the estimated 20 million Internally Displaced Persons forcibly displaced within their own country, nor the tens of millions more of internal migrants, mainly rural to urban, in countries around the world.

Increasing ethnic and racial diversity of societies is the inevitable consequence of migration. Increasing migration means that a growing number of states have become or are becoming more multi-ethnic, and are confronted with the challenge of accommodating peoples of different cultures, races, religions and languages. Addressing the reality of increased diversity means finding political, legal, social and economic mechanisms to ensure mutual respect and to mediate relations across differences. But xenophobia and racism have become manifest in some societies which have received substantial numbers of immigrants, as workers or as asylum-seekers. In those countries the migrants have become the targets in internal disputes about national identity. In the last few decades, the emergence of new nation states has often been accompanied by ethnic exclusion.

As governments grapple with the new realities of their multi-ethnic societies, there has been a marked increase in discrimination and violence directed against migrants, refugees and other non-nationals by extremist groups in many parts of the world. The lack of any systematic documentation or research over time makes it unclear whether there is a real increase in the level of abuse or in the level of exposure and reporting. Unfortunately, there is more than enough anecdotal evidence to show that violations of the human rights of migrants, refugees and other non-nationals are so generalised, widespread and commonplace that they are a defining feature of international migration today.

The extent of racial discrimination and xenophobia is often played down and sometimes denied by authorities. Racial discrimination is defined in international law as being: any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

Racism and xenophobia are distinct phenomena, although they often overlap. While racism generally implies distinction based on difference in physical characteristics, such as skin colour, hair type, facial features, etc, xenophobia denotes behaviour specifically based on the perception that ‘the other’ is foreign to or originates from outside the community or nation. By the standard dictionary definition, xenophobia is the intense dislike or fear of strangers or people from other countries. As a sociologist puts it, ‘xenophobia is an attitudinal orientation of hostility against non-natives in a given population.’

The definition of xenophobia, and its differentiation from racism and racial discrimination, is a still-evolving concept. One of the regional Preparatory Meetings for a recent World Conference suggested that:

– Racism is an ideological construct that assigns a certain race and/or ethnic group, to a position of power over others on the basis of physical and cultural attributes, as well as economic wealth, involving hierarchical relations where the superior race exercises domination and control over others.

– Xenophobia describes attitudes, prejudices and behaviour that reject, exclude and often vilify persons, based on the perception that they are outsiders or foreigners in the community, society or with respect to national identity.

In many cases, it is difficult to distinguish between racism and xenophobia as motivations for behaviour, since differences in physical characteristics are often assumed to distinguish a person from the common identity. However, manifestations of xenophobia occur against people of identical physical characteristics, even of shared ancestry, when such people arrive, return or migrate to states or areas where occupants consider them outsiders.