Following a number of high profile escapes during the 1990s, policy makers in the Dutch Prison Service and in the Prison Service of England and Wales faced stark choices about how to house their highest risk offenders. They made those choices in the spotlight of publicity and under pressure from politicians and the press. In this article we seek to present the choices made in the light of the respective histories of the two systems by using a framework drawn from the literature on public policy formation. Our aim is not so much to develop or test hypotheses about policy formation, but rather to try to understand two things: first, how these particular policies compare with so-called supermax solutions developed in the United States and second, why policy makers decided to choose one policy option rather than the other.
Advisory Council on the Penal System (ACPS) ( 1968) The regime for long-term prisoners in conditions of maximum security (Report of the Radzinowicz Subcommittee). London : HMSO.
2.
Bennet, Colin J. and Michael Howlett ( 1992) ‘The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change’, Policy Sciences25(3): 275-94.
3.
Boin, Arjen ( 1995) ‘Het gevangeniswezen: Naar een nieuwe balans tussen centrale controle en autonomie van inrichtingen’, Sancties5(3): 147-61.
4.
Boin, Arjen ( 2001) ‘Securing safety in the Dutch prison system: Pros and cons of a supermax’, Howard Journal40(4): 335-46.
5.
Bottomley, A. Keith ( 1995) CRC special units: A general assessment. London: Home Office Research and Planning Unit.
6.
Clare, Emma and A. Keith Bottomley (eds) (2001) Evaluation of close supervision centres: Home Office research study 219. London : Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate .
7.
CPT (Committee for the Prevention of Torture) ( 1998) Report to the Netherlands government on the visit to the Netherlands carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment from 17-27 November 1997 . Strasbourg: CPT.
8.
CPT (Committee for the Prevention of Torture) ( 2002a) Report to the Government of the United Kingdom on the visit to the United Kingdom carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment from 4 to 16 February 2001. Strasbourg: CPT.
9.
CPT (Committee for the Prevention of Torture) ( 2002b) Report to the authorities of the Kingdom of the Netherlands on the visits carried out to the Kingdom in Europe and to the Netherlands Antilles by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in February 2002. Strasbourg: CPT.
10.
CPT (Committee for the Prevention of Torture) ( 2005) Response of the United Kingdom government to the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on its visit to the United Kingdom from 14 to 19 March 2004. Strasbourg: CPT.
11.
Cullen, Francis T., Bonnie S. Fisher and Brandon K. Applegate ( 2000) ‘Public opinion about punishment and corrections’ , in M. Tonry (ed.) Crime and justice: An annual review of research, vol. 27, pp. 1-79. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
12.
DJI (Diens Justitiële Inrichtingen) ( 1998) Gevangeniswezen. Den Haag: Ministerie van Justitie.
13.
Dockley, Anita ( 1996) ‘What did Learmont say? Some "on the ground" views of the Learmont Report’, Howard Journal35(4): 353-62.
14.
Downes, David ( 1988) Contrasts in tolerance: Post-war penal policy in the Netherlands and England and Wales. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
15.
Downes, David ( 1998) ‘The buckling of the shields: Dutch penal policy 1985-1995’, in R.P. Weiss and N. South (eds) Comparing prison systems: Towards a comparative and international penology , pp. 143-74. Amsterdam : OPA.
16.
Dunbar, Ian and Anthony Langdon ( 1998) Tough justice: Sentencing and penal policies in the 1990s . London: Blackstone Press.
17.
Feeley, Malcolm M. and Jonathan Simon ( 1992) ‘The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications’, Criminology30(4): 449-74.
18.
Ferlie, Ewan, Lynn Ashburner, Louise Fitzgerald and Andrew Pettigrew ( 1996) The New Public Management in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
Franke, Herman ( 1996) De macht van het lijden: Twee eeuwen gevangenisstraf in Nederland. Amsterdam: Balans .
20.
Garland, David ( 2001) The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21.
Hadfield, Ronald and Gordon Lakes ( 1991) Summary report of an audit of custody arrangements for category A prisoners and of an inquiry into DOC1 Division. London: Home Office, HM Prison Service.
22.
Hall, Peter A. ( 1993) ‘Policy paradigms, social learning, and the State: The case of economic policymaking in Britain’, Comparative Politics25(3): 275-96.
23.
Heclo, Hugh ( 1974) Modern social politics in Britain and Sweden: From relief to income maintenance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
24.
Hoekstra Inquiry ( 1992) Rapport Evaluatiecommissie Beveiligingsbeleid Gevangeniswezen, deel I, II and III. Den Haag: Ministerie van Justitie.
25.
Home Affairs Committee (1997) The management of the Prison Service (public and private) volume II 2/2. London: The Stationery Office.
26.
Home Office (1966) Report of the Inquiry into the Prison Escapes and Security (the Mountbatten Report). Cm 3175. London: HMSO.
27.
Home Office (1984) Managing the long-term prison system: The report of the Control Review Committee. London: HMSO.
28.
Home Office (1991a) Prison disturbances April 1990: Report of an Inquiry by the Rt Hon Lord Justice Woolf (parts I and II) and His Honour Judge Stephen Tumim (part II). Cm 1456, February. London: HMSO.
29.
Home Office (1991b) Custody, care and justice: The way ahead for the Prison Service in England and Wales . London: HMSO.
30.
Home Office (1994) Report of the Enquiry into the Escape of Six Prisoners from the Special Security Unit at Whitemoor Prison, Cambridgeshire, on Friday 9th September 1994 (the Woodcock Report). London: HMSO.
31.
Home Office (1995) Review of Prison Service Security in England and Wales and the escape from Parkhurst Prison on Tuesday 3rd January 1995 (the Learmont Report). Cm 3020. London: HMSO.
32.
Home Office (2000) Inspection of close supervision centres: August-September 1999. London : Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons.
33.
Home Office (2006) Extreme custody: A thematic inspection of close supervision centres and high security segregation . London: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons.
34.
Human Rights Watch (1997) Cold storage: Supermaximum-security confinement in Indiana. New York: Human Rights Watch.
35.
King, Roy D. ( 1985) ‘Control in prisons’, in M. Maguire, J. Vagg and R. Morgan (eds) Accountability and prisons: Opening up a closed world, pp. 187-203. London & New York: Tavistock Publications.
36.
King, Roy D. ( 1999) ‘The rise and rise of supermax: An American solution in search of a problem?’, Punishment & Society1(2): 163-86.
37.
King, Roy D. ( 2005) ‘The effects of supermax custody’, in A. Liebling and S. Maruna (eds) The effects of imprisonment, pp. 118-45. Cullompton : Willan Publishing.
38.
King, Roy D. ( 2007) ‘Security, control and the problems of containment’ , in Y. Jewkes (ed.) Handbook on prisons, pp. 329-55. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
39.
King, Roy D. and Kenneth W. Elliott ( 1977) Albany: Birth of a prison - end of an era. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
40.
King, Roy D. and Kathleen McDermott ( 1995) The state of our prisons. Oxford : Clarendon Press.
41.
King, Roy D. and Rod Morgan ( 1980) The future of the prison system. Farnborough : Gower.
42.
Kuhn, Thomas S. ( 1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
43.
Kurki, Leena and Norval Morris ( 2001) ‘The purposes, practices and problems of supermax prisons’, in M. Tonry (ed.) Crime and justice: A review of research, vol. 28, pp. 385-424. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
44.
Lewis, Derek ( 1997) Hidden agendas: Politics, law and disorder. London: Hamish Hamilton.
45.
Liebling, Alison ( 2001) ‘Policy and practice in the management of disruptive prisoners: Incentives earned privileges, the Spurr Report and close supervision centres, Appendix 1’, in E. Clare and A.K. Bottomley (eds) Evaluation of close supervision centres: Home Office research study 219, pp. 115-64. London: Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate.
46.
Liebling, Alison ( 2004) Prisons and their moral performance: A study of values, quality and prison life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
47.
Madrid v. Gomez (1995) No. C90-304-TEH, Class action: Findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order, US District Court for the Northern District of California, January.
48.
Mears, Daniel P. and Jamie Watson ( 2006) ‘Towards a fair and balanced assessment of supermax prisons’, Justice Quarterly23(2): 232-70.
49.
Ministry of Justice (1987) Rapport van de werkgroep Opvang Vlucht- en Gemeengevaarlijke Gedetineerden. Den Haag: Ministerie van Justitie.
50.
Ministry of Justice (1994) Werkzame Detentie. Den Haag: Ministerie van Justitie.
51.
Ministry of Justice (1999) Informatie ‘Extra beveiligde inrichting’. Memo to Parliament (5002015/99/DJI).
52.
Molenkamp, Bart ( 2001) The Special Security Unit in the Vught Prison. Fact sheet written by Governing Governor PI Vught.
53.
Morgan, Rod ( 1996) ‘Learmont: Dangerously unbalanced’ , Howard Journal35(4): 346-53.
54.
Morgan, Rod ( 2001) ‘England and Wales’, in D. van Zyl Smit and F. Dünkel (eds) Imprisonment today and tomorrow: International perspectives on prisoners’ rights and prison conditions, 2nd edn, pp. 211-37. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
55.
Nic (1997) Supermax housing: A survey of current practice, special issues in corrections. Longmont, CO: US Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
56.
Nic (1999) Supermax prisons: Overview and general considerations. Longmont, CO: US Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
57.
Resodihardjo, Sandra L. ( 2004) ‘Discourse and funnelling: How discourse affected Howard’s leeway during the 1994-5 crisis’, Journal for Crime, Conflict and Media Culture1(3): 15-27. Also available at http://www.jc2m.co.uk/Issue3/Resodihardjo.pdf
58.
Resodihardjo, Sandra L. ( 2006) ‘Wielding a double-edged sword: The use of inquiries at times of crisis’, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management14(4): 199-206.
59.
Resodihardjo, Sandra L. ( 2009) Crisis and change in the British and Dutch Prison Service: Understanding crisis-reform processes. Farnham : Ashgate.
60.
Rhodes, Lorna A. ( 2004) Total confinement: Madness and reason in the maximum security prison. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
61.
Rochefort, David A. and Roger W. Cobb ( 1994) ‘Problem definition: An emerging perspective’ , in D.A. Rochefort and R.W. Cobb (eds) The politics of problem definition: Shaping the policy agenda, pp. 1-31. Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
62.
Van Dongen, Menno ( 2006a) ‘Vleugel voor terroristen slecht idee’ , De Volkskrant, 26 October: 1.
63.
Van Dongen, Menno ( 2006b) ‘Zo wordt terrorist nog een held’ , De Volkskrant, 26 October: 3.
64.
Verhagen, Jos ( 1994) De Tijdelijke Extra Beveiligde Inrichting. Den Haag: Ministerie van Justitie.
65.
Walmsley, Roy ( 1989) Special Security Units: A Home Office Research and Planning Unit report (no. 109). London : HMSO.
66.
Ward, David and Thomas Werlich ( 2003) ‘Alcatraz and Marion: Evaluating supermaximum custody’ , Punishment & Society5(1): 53-75.
