Jou nal o Educa ion Cul u e and Socie y No. 2_2022 39
Al e na i e punishmen as asui able
al e na i e o imp isonmen
Lýdia Leško á
Facul y o Theology Košice, Depa men o Social Sciences
Ca holic Uni e si y in Ružombe ok
Hla ná 89, 041 21 Košice, Slo akia
E-mail ad ess: [email p o ec ed]
ORCID: h ps://o cid.o g/ 0000-0002-8483-0313
Lenka Habu ajo á Ila ská
Facul y o Humani ies
Tomas Ba a Uni e si y in Zlin
Š e ániko a 5670, 760 01 Zlín, Czech Republic
E-mail ad ess: [email p o ec ed]
ORCID: h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0002-4699-3381
José Ga cía Ma ín
Facul y o Poli ical Sciences and Sociology
Uni e si y o G anada, Depa men o Sociology
Calle Rec o López A güe a s/n, 18001 G anada, Spain
E-mail add ess: [email p o ec ed]
ORCID: h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0001-7401-0613
Abs ac
Aim. The philosophy o al e na i e punishmen is based on keeping he con ic-
ed pe son ee, while imposing a punishmen ha will ac p e en i ely agains
commi ing ano he elony. The pape ocuses on pe cei ing he impo ance o al e -
na i e punishmen as pa o es o a i e jus ice, and on p esen ing he esul s o he
ques ionnai e su ey which aimed o iden i y he public´s p e e ences in he con ex
o a ious o ms o al e na i e punishmen s as an op ion, ins ead o imp isonmen .
A en ion is paid o h ee al e na i e punishmen s, speci ically: communi y se ice,
house a es , and mone a y sen ence ( ine).
Me hods. The ques ionnai e su ey aimed o ind ou wha o ms o al e na i e
punishmen a e, acco ding o he esponden s, a sui able al e na i e o inca ce a-
ion. The su ey sample comp ised o Slo ak indi iduals (N=1078) aged om 16
yea s and olde , he eo 31.3% men (N=337) and 68.7% women (N=741).
Resul s. Based on he analysis o he da a collec ed om he 1078 esponden s´
answe s o he indi idual ques ions in he ques ionnai e, communi y se ice was
40 E hics
iden i ied as he mos a o able al e na i e o imp isonmen , whe eas he leas p e-
e ences he esponden s ga e o he op ion o mone a y ines.
Conclusion. The concep o al e na i e punishmen is unde s ood as a o m
o punishmen ha ul ills he pu pose o a sen ence, wi hou dep i a ion o e-
edom, bu s ill gua an eeing he ul ilmen o a cou -o de ed uncondi ional e i-
bu ion. Compa ed o adi ional o ms o punishmen , al e na i e me hods o eso-
l ing judicial cases do no en o ce ep ession and p e e he indi idual app oach
o punishing he accused (con ic ed) pe sons wi h emphasis on co ec i e aspec s
o al e na i e punishmen . The esul s o he su ey showed ha he esponden s
s ongly p e e one o m o al e na i e punishmen , namely he communi y se ice.
Keywo ds: al e na i e punishmen , quan i a i e su ey, mone a y sen ence,
es o a i e jus ice, house a es , compulso y labou (communi y se ice)
In oduc ion
Since ancien imes, people ha e pe o med ac s ha we e unaccep able
o socie y, and we e subsequen ly subjec ed o a ious punishmen s o
hem, mos ly aimed a isola ing he o ende om socie y. G adually, h o-
ugh he de elopmen o socie y, he e was an e o o ensu e ha punish-
men s did no only se e he unc ion o a sanc ion in he o m o p e en ing
con ac wi h he ou side wo ld, bu also sough o e-socialise and p epa e
he o ende o ein oduc ion in o no mal li e in socie y. Acco ding o
Howa d Zeh (2003), wo models o social esponse o c ime ha e ope a-
ed in Wes e n his o y: he communi y jus ice model and he s a e jus ice
model. The essence o he communi y jus ice model is desc ibed by Ma ina
U bano á (2006) as he in e nalisa ion o communi y no ms o social e hics
no egula ed by law, and his model is o en based on nego ia ion and
compensa ion. A di e en philosophy is ep esen ed by he model o s a e
jus ice, which was buil wi h he de elopmen o s a e machine y, public
au ho i y and legal no ms.
Despi e p ison e o m e o s, inca ce a ion is associa ed wi h he isks
o p isonisa ion, immobilisa ion and s igma isa ion e ec s (Lubelco á,
2005). In Zygmun Bauman’s (2000) iew, p isons o en unc ion as sel - ul-
illing p ophecies. P isone s a e a isk o being d awn u he in o c ime, as
hey may become acquain ed wi h o he c iminals, which can lead a highe
likelihood o eo ending upon elease (Le man, 2009; Goulding, 2007). This
has esul ed in a se ies o s udies ha a e scep ical owa ds he idea ha
p ison can ehabili a e o ende s (Robe s, 2004; Jewkes & Benne , 2013;
Leško á, 2013; Lojan & Vancáko á, 2021). Resea ch esul s also con i m
ha social isola ion causes discom o and ha people become esis an o
mo e communi y ac i i ies (Ma u kanič e al., 2022). Based on hese a gu-
men s, i was necessa y o look o o he al e na i es ha , while punishing
o ende s, would also elimina e hei isola ion by o e ing al e na i e o ms
o punishmen .
Jou nal o Educa ion Cul u e and Socie y No. 2_2022 41
Res o a i e jus ice and i s philosophy
Humans a e bo n in o a web o s anda d p ocesses and pa e ns o
beha iou c ea ed and modi ied o e ime (Tkáčo á, Pa líko á, T doň, &
P okopye , 2021). These egula ions a e uni e sally applicable and compli-
ance wi h hem is con olled by he ele an legisla ion. In he case o de ia-
ions in beha iou and non-compliance wi h gene ally applicable s anda ds
come sanc ions, which can ake a wide ange o o ms. Imp isonmen is one
o he mos se ious in e e ences wi h undamen al ci il igh s and ee-
doms because i cons i u es a es ic ion on hem. Some expe s a gue (Van
Ness & S ong, 2009) ha hea ily ep essi e puni i e measu es a e ailing
and missing hei pu pose. Go don Bazemo e and Ma a Schi (2001) a gue
agains puni i e p ac ices based on isola ing indi iduals. O e all, du ing
any isola ion, acco ding o se e al au ho s (Pe o ič e al., 2021), he e may
be an inc ease in anxie y and a dec ease in pe sonal well-being. Also in
an anomic en i onmen , endencies o he de elopmen o pa hological
phenomena a e no ed (T doň e al., 2021). Despi e his p emise, he e is a
s ong labelling o indi iduals who a e in p ison o ha e comple ed hei
sen ence and seek o ully in eg a e in o socie y (Leško á, 2013). The p ob-
lem o exclusion is also poin ed ou by o he au ho s (Tkáčo á, Al-Absio á
e al., 2021), who emphasise ha in socie ies he e a e p oblems o s e eo-
yping he o he , o o he s who de ia e om gene ally accep ed no ms,
which can lead o he labelling o indi iduals while a he same ime deep-
ening oppo uni ies o social inclusion.
Pe sons who ha e se ed hei sen ences a e included among he g oups
o people who, o a ious easons, a e excluded om socie y and disad-
an aged on he labou ma ke , which c ea es a s ong p e equisi e o hei
ulne abili y o social exclusion.
Social exclusion can a ec se e al a eas, i is a mul idimensional phe-
nomenon (economic, social, educa ion, housing, cul u al, ela ionships,
heal h,...) (Šuľo á, 2015). Ca ing o he poo and ich, gi ing each o hem
wha hey need mos , is based on compassion o e e y li ing c ea u e
(K álik e al., 2022). The e is oom o social policy ins umen s o his
a ge g oup ha would enable hem o be included in he labou ma ke
and o unc ion be e socially in socie y (Ba gel & Mühlpach , 2010). I
is he e o e necessa y o public policy o help people o li e a good li e
(Mu gaš e al., 2022). Acco ding o Pe Ma eš (2006), i is desi able ha a
pe son eleased om p ison is able o unc ion independen ly socially in
socie y. Ján P aško e al. (2011) a gue ha s igma isa ion can mani es as
a eeling o in e io i y o as a de aluing a i ude o he en i onmen . The
au ho s Hed iga Tkáčo á, Ma ina Pa líko á, Mi osla T doň and Zi a
Jeniso á (2021) ad oca e he impo ance o pe sonal esponsibili y o he
wo ld and sus ainable de elopmen , which canno be achie ed wi hou ol-
e ance and accep ance o people who a e jus looking o he igh pa h. A
he same ime, i is necessa y o seek he in insic alue o he o he and o
42 E hics
s eng hen his digni y (Roubalo á e al., 2021). In his con ex , acco ding o
se e al au ho s (Judák e al., 2022), he e is oom o s eng hening he ci ic
esponsibili y o indi iduals in socie y.
A commonly used e m in c iminal jus ice has become es o a i e jus ice,
which, acco ding o se e al au ho s (S émy e al., 2015) emphasises he
es o a ion o he ic im and socie y, a he han he punishmen o he
o ende . I has a numbe o objec i es, such as s eng hening he o ende ’s
accoun abili y in e ms o ex ending hei possibili ies o compensa e ic-
ims no only symbolically bu also ma e ially and encou aging he se le-
men o he con lic be ween o ende s, ic ims and socie y. One o i s mos
p ominen aims, highligh ed by Tomáš S émy and Ja osla Klá ik (2018),
is he issue o al e na i e punishmen . The es o a i e model o jus ice is
an al e na i e o he adi ional disciplina y ( e ibu i e) model o socie al
esponse o c ime.
The punishmen imposed on he o ende and he way i is ca ied ou
should, i s o all, enable he es o a ion o social ela ions be ween he
o ende and he ic im ha we e dis u bed by he c ime (Ka abec, 2000).
The es o a i e model does no only imply he applica ion o al e na i e
sanc ions, bu a comp ehensi e change o philosophy in he app oach o
he o ende and he socie al esponse o hei w ongdoing.
Acco ding o Cli o d Shea ing (2001) and Hennessey Hayes (2007), i
does no p edominan ly seek o punish o ende s and isola e hem. In his
ega d, John B ai hwai e (2000) s esses ha , unlike puni i e jus ice, i is
no so pas -o ien ed bu u u e-o ien ed.
Al e na i e punishmen s
The philosophy o al e na i e punishmen is o keep he con ic ed
pe son a libe y, imposing a sen ence ha will ac as a de e en agains
commi ing u he c ime (Láš ico á & Vajze o á, 2007). Acco ding o
Ka a ína Jakubo ich (2020) and Ja osla I o e al. (2016), compa ed o a-
di ional o ms o punishmen , al e na i e me hods o dispu e esolu ion
emphasise an indi idual app oach o dealing wi h c ime and emphasise
he impo ance o a p e en i e way o wo king wi h he accused (o he
con ic ed). When punishing indi iduals – o ende s, we ank al e na i e
punishmen s wi h subs an i e al e na i e measu es (Ju čo á, 2012).
The cu en wo ding o he C iminal Code (Ac No. 300/2005 Coll.) in
Slo akia allows o he subs i u ion o an uncondi ional p ison sen ence
by he imposi ion o , o example, he ollowing al e na i e punishmen s:
house a es (Sec ion 53), compulso y labou (Sec ion 54-55), a ine (Sec ion
56-57), and a ban on pa icipa ion in public e en s (Sec ion 62a).
F om he beginning, he punishmen o house a es has been p esen ed
as an e ec i e ool o elie e o e c owded p isons (I o & Záho a, 2019).
Acco ding o Jakubo ich (2020), he posi i es o imposing house a es inc-
Jou nal o Educa ion Cul u e and Socie y No. 2_2022 43
lude he p ese a ion o amily and emo ional ies wi h he neighbou hood
and a lowe inancial bu den on he s a e.
The cou may impose he penal y o compulso y labou wi h he consen
o he o ende in he amoun o 40 o 300 hou s. Lenka Láš ico á and Jana
Vajze o á (2007) s a e ha i is an al e na i e o sho - e m imp isonmen .
A mone a y sen ence has he cha ac e o an al e na i e punishmen only
i i is imposed sepa a ely and no in addi ion o an uncondi ional p ison
sen ence. I may be imposed by he cou om EUR 160 o EUR 331930 on
he o ende o a delibe a e c iminal o ence by which he/she has ob ained
o a emp ed o ob ain a pecunia y bene i (Ac No. 300/2005 Coll.).
Resea ch me hodology
The aim o he esea ch was o ind ou people’s iews on he pe cei ed
impo ance o al e na i e punishmen s in es o a i e jus ice and wha he
public’s p e e ences a e in ela ion o di e en o ms o al e na i e punish-
men s as al e na i es o imp isonmen . A en ion was paid o h ee al e na-
i e punishmen s, namely: he sen ence o compulso y labou , he sen ence
o house a es and he mone a y sen ence.
To asce ain he iews o he public, we c ea ed a su ey o ou own
design wi h iden i ying ques ions and s a emen s. Legisla ion o he Slo ak
Republic – Ac No. 300/2005 Coll. he C iminal Ac exhaus i ely de ines
punishmen s and hei al e na i es. I was his a iabili y ha led us o de ine
h ee s a emen s o asce ain esponden s’ iews on al e na i e punishmen s
o imp isonmen in cus ody, namely: house a es (Sec ion 53), compulso y
labou (Sec ions 54-55) and a mone a y sen ence (Sec ions 56-57).
We assigned h ee s a emen s o his a ea:
• s a emen 1 sough he esponden s’ opinion on he al e na i e punish-
men o house a es ,
• s a emen 2 sough he esponden s’ opinion on he al e na i e punish-
men o compulso y labou ,
• s a emen 3 sough he esponden s’ opinion on a mone a y sen ence as
an al e na i e o imp isonmen .
We s a ed 3 hypo heses o he s a emen s:
• H1 (s a emen No. 1) – The e is a signi ican di e ence be ween age
g oups in he esponden s’ iews on hei p e e ence o al e na i e
punishmen s o house a es .
• H2 (s a emen No. 2) – The e is a signi ican di e ence be ween age
g oups in he esponden s’ opinion on hei p e e ence o al e na i e
punishmen s o compulso y labou .
• H3 (s a emen No. 3) – The e is a signi ican di e ence be ween age
g oups in he esponden s’ opinion on hei p e e ence o mone a y
sen ence.

44 E hics
To measu e he opinion o he esponden s we used a e y app op ia e
ool, namely scaling, which no only de ec s he ac whe he he phenome-
non occu ed, bu also he deg ee o e alua ion o he esponden ’s pe cep-
ion o he phenomenon. The scale we se o he e alua ion had 5 le els
(See Table 1).
Table 1
Scale o e alua ion o s a emen s
1 2 3 4 5
I s ongly
ag ee
I ag ee Neu al
opinion on he
s a emen
I disag ee I s ongly
disag ee
Ag eemen wi h he s a emen Disag eemen wi h he
s a emen
Sou ce: own esea ch.
When e alua ing he p e e ence o he scale le els, we conside ed he
selec ion o al e na i es 1 and 2 as ag eemen wi h he s a emen and he
selec ion o al e na i es 4 and 5 as disag eemen wi h he s a emen .
To cha ac e ize he esea ch popula ion, we used da a ob ained om
quan i a i e esea ch in e ms o socio-demog aphic cha ac e is ics, namely
gende , esidence, ma i al s a us and age o esponden s (See Table 2 –
Table 4).
Table 2
Dis ibu ion o esponden s by age and gende
Gende Men Women To al
Age N % N % N %
om 16 o 20 yea s 38 11.3 43 5.8 81 7.5
om 20 o 30 yea s 96 28.5 129 17.4 225 20.9
om 30 o 40 yea s 76 22.5 199 26.9 275 25.5
om 40 o 50 yea s 67 19.9 219 29.6 286 26.6
om 50 o 60 yea s 33 9.8 116 15.6 149 13.8
60 o 70 yea s old 21 6.2 31 4.2 52 4.8
70 yea s and o e 6 1.8 4 0.5 10 0.9
To al 337 100.0 741 100.0 1078 100.0
Sou ce: own esea ch.
1,078 esponden s pa icipa ed in he su ey, o which 741 we e women
(68.67%) and 337 we e men (31.33%). In e ms o age g oups, he 40 o 50
age g oup (26.6%) and he 30 o 40 age g oup (25.5%) had he la ges o e all
ep esen a ion. In e ms o gende , males we e mos ep esen ed in he 20
o 30 age g oup (28.5%), while emales we e mos ep esen ed in he 40 o
50 age g oup.
Jou nal o Educa ion Cul u e and Socie y No. 2_2022 45
Table 3
Dis ibu ion o esponden s by esidence and gende
Gende Men Women To al
Residence N % N % N %
Village 141 41.8 292 39.4 433 40.2
Ci y 196 58.2 449 60.6 645 59.8
To al 337 100.0 741 100.0 1078 100.0
Sou ce: own esea ch.
Table 4
Dis ibu ion o esponden s by ma i al s a us and gende
Gende Men Women To al
Ma i al s a us N % N % N %
Single 100 29.7 178 24.0 278 25.8
Ma ied 122 36.2 362 48.9 484 44.9
Pa ne 80 23.7 103 13.9 183 17.0
Di o cee 27 8.0 86 11.6 113 10.5
Widow / widowe 8 2.4 12 1.6 20 1.8
To al 337 100.0 741 100.0 1078 100.0
Sou ce: own esea ch.
Resea ch esul s
Responden s’ iews on he use o house a es we e e i ied wi h a s a e-
men : “I conside house a es o be an app op ia e al e na i e o imp ison-
men ” (See Table 5 and Table 6).
Table 5
The penal y o house a es – an al e na i e o imp isonmen
Age limi Choice o al e na i e To al Ø
1 2 3 4 5
16 o 20 yea s old -
o al
8 12 1 25 35 81 3.8
o which men 2 3 0 12 21 38 4.2
women 69 1 13 14 43 3.5
20 o 30 yea s – o al 41 50 54 42 38 225 2.9
o which men 21 20 14 21 20 96 3.0
women 20 30 40 21 18 129 2.9
30 o 40 yea s old –
o al
60 75 71 38 31 275 2.7
o which men 21 22 17 7 976 2.5
women 39 53 54 31 22 199 2.7
40 o 50 yea s – o al 67 77 90 33 19 286 2.4
46 E hics
Age limi Choice o al e na i e To al Ø
1 2 3 4 5
o which men 20 18 17 6 6 67 2.3
women 47 59 73 27 13 219 2.5
50 o 60 yea s – o al 42 39 36 18 14 149 2.4
o which men 10 9 5 5 4 33 2.4
women 32 30 31 13 10 116 2.4
60 o 70 yea s – o al 14 17 9 8 4 52 2.4
o which men 66153 21 2.5
women 8 11 8 3 1 31 2.3
70 and o e – o al 3 3 2 1 1 10 2.3
o which men 1 3 1 1 0 62.3
women 2 0 1 0 1 4 2.3
To al (N) 235 273 263 165 142 1078 2.7
% 21.8 25.3 24.4 15.3 13.2 100.0 –
Sou ce: own esea ch.
O e all, he esponden s’ opinion on he punishmen o house a es
was 2.7, which ep esen s a a he neu al opinion. In e ms o gende , we
see di e ences in p e e ences. The younges age g oup, aged 16 o 20, p e-
e ed nega i e conno a ions and did no p e e he punishmen o house
a es (3.8), wi h his being mo e p onounced in he male g oup (4.2). Olde
age g oups o esponden s p e e ed mo e posi i e conno a ions and consi-
de ed house a es as an app op ia e al e na i e o punishmen .
Table 6
House a es as an al e na i e o imp isonmen (%)
Age limi Choice o al e na i e To al (%)
12345
om 16 o 20 yea s 9.9 14.8 1.2 30.9 43.2 100.0
om 20 o 30 yea s 18.2 22.2 24.0 18.7 16.9 100.0
om 30 o 40 yea s 21.8 27.3 25.8 13.8 11.3 100.0
om 40 o 50 yea s 23.4 26.9 31.5 11.5 6.7 100.0
om 50 o 60 yea s 28.2 26.2 24.1 12.1 9.4 100.0
60 o 70 yea s old 26.9 32.7 17.3 15.4 7.7 100.0
70 yea s and o e 30.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 100.0
Sou ce: own esea ch.
In e ms o he pe cen age o age g oups’ choice o al e na i es, posi-
i e conno a ions o he al e na i e punishmen o house a es we e mo e
s ongly decla ed by olde age g oups, while younge age g oups ended o
p e e nega i e conno a ions.
The esponden s’ iews on he use o compulso y labou sen ences
we e e i ied by he s a emen : “I conside he punishmen o compulso y
Jou nal o Educa ion Cul u e and Socie y No. 2_2022 47
labou o be an app op ia e al e na i e o imp isonmen ” (See Table 7 and
Table 8).
Table 7
Compulso y labou – a sui able al e na i e o imp isonmen
Age limi Choice o al e na i e To al Ø
1 2 3 4 5
16 o 20 yea s old – o al 55 20 0 4 2 81 1.5
o which men 28 60 3 1 38 1.5
women 27 14 0 1 1 43 1.5
20 o 30 yea s – o al 90 63 41 18 13 225 2.1
o which men 45 29 10 4 8 96 2.0
women 45 34 31 14 5129 2.3
30 o 40 yea s old – o al 127 82 50 10 6 275 1.9
o which men 39 23 9 3 2 76 1.8
women 88 59 41 74 199 1.9
40 o 50 yea s – o al 142 76 44 15 9286 1.9
o which men 33 20 64 4 67 1.9
women 109 56 38 11 5219 1.8
50 o 60 yea s – o al 95 28 19 52 149 1.6
o which men 20 10 3 0 0 33 1.5
women 75 18 16 5 2116 1.6
60 o 70 yea s – o al 33 12 60 1 52 1.5
o which men 16 3 2 0 0 21 1.3
women 17 9 4 0 1 31 1.6
70 and o e – o al 6 1 3 0 0 10 1.7
o which men 4 1 1 0 0 6 1.5
women 2 0 2 0 0 4 2.0
To al (N) 548 282 163 52 33 1078 1.8
%50.8 26.2 15.1 4.8 3.1 100.0 –
Sou ce: own esea ch.
O e all, he esponden s’ opinion o compulso y labou was 1.8 , ep e-
sen ing a a he posi i e iew o he use o his al e na i e punishmen . In
e ms o gende , we see only sligh di e ences in p e e ences.
Table 8
Compulso y labou as an al e na i e o imp isonmen (%)
Age limi Choice o al e na i e To al (%)
12345
om 16 o 20 yea s 67,9 24.7 0.0 4.93 2.5 100.0
om 20 o 30 yea s 40.0 28.0 18.2 8.0 5.8 100.0
om 30 o 40 yea s 46.2 28.8 18.2 3.6 2.2 100.0
54 E hics