Shut out & locked away
Over the course of many decades, up until 1981, tens of thousands of Swiss citizens, both adults and juveniles, were locked away in detention facilities and prisons even though they had committed no crime. How and why could that happen?
In order that this past injustice not be forgotten, the victims, supported by political leaders and historians, lobbied for an open public discussion. In response, the Federal Council appointed in 2014 an Independent Expert Commission (IEC) on Administrative Detention. Under the direction of the IEC, an interdisciplinary research team has investigated the use of such measures in the period prior to 1981.
The present online exhibition highlights some of the main aspects of the history of administrative detention in Switzerland. An exhibition pavilion will travel to twelve cities in Switzerland from March to early June 2019, marking the completion of the IEC’s research activities. A series of accompanying events will be held simultaneously at different venues.
1. ADMINISTRATIVE DETENTION
Administrative detention was the term in use until 1981 for various measures involving the deprivation of liberty and internment in a closed facility on the order of an administrative authority. Such measures were in general imposed without judicial process. The legal basis for the detention orders was provided by various cantonal laws and the Swiss Civil Code. The individuals detained were held in custody not because they had committed any criminal offence, but because the authorities viewed their conduct and their way of life as contrary to prevailing social norms and as threat to public order – and, consequently, worthy of public censure. It was not until 1981 that the Federal Government revised and standardised the legal bases for ordering administrative detention. Having acceded to the European Convention on Human Rights in 1974, Switzerland had come under pressure from international organizations to reorganise its detention system in a manner consistent with internationally recognised fundamental rights.
Sergio Devecchi, 2017
seit frühester Kindheit in verschiedenen Kinder- und Jugendheimen platziert, leitete später als Sozialpädagoge selbst Jugendheime
«MAN HÄTTE ADMINISTRATIVE VERSORGUNGEN GAR NICHT ZULASSEN SOLLEN. DA HABEN UNSERE GESELLSCHAFT UND POLITIK SCHLICHTWEG VERSAGT: DASS ES SO LANGE GEHT, BIS MAN DAS ÜBERHAUPT SICHTBAR MACHEN KONNTE.»
View the source
View the source
2. HOW AND WHY?
Political leaders and public authorities justified the use of administrative detention by an alleged need to protect society against persons whose conduct was considered objectionable. The individuals who were placed in detention, and in this way shut out from the rest of society, came predominantly from socially and economically deprived backgrounds. They are referred to contemptuously as being «indolent», «dissolute», «drunkards» and «degenerates». These characterisations reflect the traditional gender roles ascribed to them. Men are detained when they allegedly neglect their family obligations. Women are taken into custody for perceived breaches of strict moral standards. The purported objective in both cases is their «improvement», so that they will conduct themselves in greater conformity with accepted social values.
When deciding on such cases, the authorities are granted a wide degree of latitude for interpreting the law and choosing the measures to be applied. For the individuals concerned, the procedure is impenetrable and the uncertainty it engenders weighs heavily on them. Appeals against detention orders are often not even forwarded to the proper authorities by the prison administration. Those that do reach their intended destinations are seldom successful.
Gesuch von Josef Theodor Peterli an den Thurgauer Regierungsrat
Gesuch um Entlassung aus der Zwangsabreitsanstalt Kalchrain vom 7. September 1919, Staatsarchiv Thurgau.
«INDEM ICH WEDER TRINKER, NOCH ARBEITSSCHEU BIN, SONDERN DIE GEMEINDE SIRNACH HAT MICH HIEHER VERSORGEN LASSEN, INDEM ICH 2 KINDER HABE, ABER JEDOCH NOCH NICHT VERHEIRATET BIN.»
View the source
View the source
View the source
3. THE INSTITUTIONAL LANDSCAPE
Both adults and juveniles are held in administrative detention institutions such as correctional labour facilities, labour colonies, juvenile correction facilities, homes for mothers and children, alcoholic rehabilitation facilities, psychiatric facilities, and poorhouses. Who is sent where is determined on the basis of gender and religious affiliation. Not all cantons operate their own detention facilities and the authorities are permitted to commit individuals to institutions located in other cantons or to private facilities. In many of those facilities, administrative detainees are housed under the same roof as convicted criminals.
Internato amministrativamente ne La Valletta
Il 31 luglio del 1955 Pierino Malandra scrive una lettera a sua sorella, la lettera porta la scritta «non spedita». Archivio di Stato del Cantone Ticino.
«SE POSSIBILE DI VENIRE IL PIU PRESTO POSSIBILIE PER LIBERARMI DI QUESTA CASA DI PAZZI! ALTRIMENTI DIVENTO PAZZO. IO SONO QUI SENZA NESSUN MOTIVO, È SOLAMENTE UN FALSO RAPPORTO MANDATO IN GOVERNO.»
INTERACTIVE MAPS
Extrapolating from the available source material, which is known to be incomplete, it is estimated that several tens of thousands of individuals were held in administrative detention in the period from 1930 to 1980.
Go to the interactive platform Institutional Landscape, Switzerland 1933-1980
This diagram illustrates how the cantons worked in cooperation with one another for the execution of administrative detention orders. It shows, for the year 1954, which cantons transferred detainees to facilities located in Bern in the year 1954, and that the Canton of Bern committed administrative detainees to facilities in other cantons.
On 3 October 1965, the Grand Council of the Canton of Bern adopted the «Act on Correctional and Detention Measures», which replaced the «Act of 1 December 1912 on Police Measures for the Poor and on Abstinence and Corrective Labour Facilities». The new law remained in force with adjustments until 1992 and provided for the administrative detention of «morally endangered or neglected minors who have completed their 18th year of age»; of «persons capable of employment who endanger themselves or their families through idleness, indolence, dissoluteness, immoral conduct, or alcohol or drug abuse»; and of «persons mentally abnormal but capable of employment».
This diagram illustrates how the cantons worked in cooperation with one another for the execution of administrative detention orders. It shows, for the year 1954, which cantons transferred administrative detainees to facilities located in the canton of Aargau, and to which facilities in other cantons the Canton of Aargau committed its own administrative detainees.
The «Act of 19 February 1868 on the Establishment of a Correctional Labour Facility» remained in force until 1981. It provided for the establishment of a correctional labour facility that is attached to the Lenzburg Correctional Facility. It was concerned with «spouses, fathers and mothers, who endanger their families through irresponsible, reckless or dissolute conduct», and with «persons who indulge in idleness, vagrancy, or disorderly and reckless conduct, and who become a burden to the public welfare support system (beggars, the dissolute, the indolent)».
This diagram illustrates how the cantons worked in cooperation with one another for the execution of administrative detention orders. It shows, for the year 1954, which cantons transferred administrative detainees to facilities located in the canton of Zurich, and to which facilities in other cantons the Canton of Zurich committed its own administrative detainees.
The «Act of 24 May 1925 on the Detention of Juveniles, Derelicts and the Habitual Drinkers» remained in force until 1981, except for the provisions on juveniles, which were repealed in 1962. The 1925 law provides for the detention of juveniles for purposes of «moral education», «building of character» and «vocational training». It also addresses the issue of persons over the age of 18 years who are considered «dissolute», «indolent», «irremediably derelict» or«habitual drinkers».
This diagram illustrates how the cantons worked in cooperation with one another for the execution of administrative detention orders. It shows, for the year 1954, which cantons transferred administrative detainees to facilities located in the canton of St. Gallen, and to which facilities in other cantons the Canton of St. Gallen committed its own administrative detainees.
The «Act of 1 August 1872 on the Detention of Indolent and Dissolute Persons in Corrective Labour Facilities» remained in effect until 1971 and was replaced by the «Act of 15 June 1971 on the Repeal of Provisions on Administrative Detention». The 1872 law concerned «persons above the age of 16 years who are capable of employment but are indolent or dissolute».
This diagram illustrates how the cantons worked in cooperation with one another for the execution of administrative detention orders. It shows that, in the year 1954, no canton transferred detainees to facilities located in the canton of Grisons, and that the Canton of Grisons ordered that its own administrative detainees be held, for the most part, in Zurich and St. Gallen.
«The Welfare Act of 11 April 1920» remained in effect until 1986, when it was replaced by the «Act of 7 December 1986 on Public Social Assistance». The 1920 law is concerned with «persons who indulge in drink or who lead a life of dissolution» and with «vagrants».
This diagram illustrates how the cantons worked in cooperation with one another for the execution of administrative detention orders. It shows that, in the year 1954, no canton transferred detainees to facilities located in the canton of Ticino, and that the Canton of Ticino ordered that its own administrative detainees be held in other cantons.
The «Act of 18 February 1929 on the Internment of Alcoholics and Vagrants», with certain amendments, remained in effect until 1985. It is concerned with persons described as «habitual drinkers», or as having a «dissolute or vagrant manner of conduct», or who allegedly indulge in «idleness or begging».
This diagram illustrates how the cantons worked in cooperation with one another for the execution of administrative detention orders. It shows, for the year 1954, which cantons transferred administrative detainees to facilities located in the canton of Lucerne, and to which facilities in other cantons the Canton of Lucerne committed its own administrative detainees.
The «Act of 4 March 1885 on the Establishment of a Corrective Labour Facility for the Canton of Lucerne» remained in effect until 1966, when it was replaced by the «Act of 8 March 1966 on the Guardianship and Detention of Endangered Adults». The corrective labour facility was intended for «persons capable of employment but who are indolent or dissolute».
This diagram illustrates how the cantons worked in cooperation with one another for the execution of administrative detention orders. It shows, for the year 1954, which cantons transferred administrative detainees to facilities located in the canton of Geneva, and to which facilities in other cantons the Canton of Geneva committed its own administrative detainees.
The «Act of 18 June 1927 on the Rehabilitation and Detention of Alcoholics», authorised the detention, «for purposes of rehabilitation» of any person «who, as a result of his alcoholism, compromises his own physical or mental well-being or that of his family, or who constitutes a threat to himself or to others.»
This diagram illustrates how the cantons worked in cooperation with one another for the execution of administrative detention orders. It shows, for the year 1954, that the Canton of Vaud committed administrative detainees to facilities located in other cantons, and that individuals from the cantons of Fribourg and Geneva were detained in facilities in the canton of Vaud.
The «Act of 8 December 1941 on the Administrative Detention of Elements Dangerous to Society» was in effect from 1942 to 1971. It authorised the interment of persons over the age of 18 years «who habitually indulge in prostitution or solicitation, who habitually derive all or part of their livelihood from the delinquency of others, gain an appreciable portion of their livelihood from gambling prohibited under the special laws, endanger through their conduct or indolence the safety or health of others, or who have served multiple terms of imprisonment for crimes or offences and demonstrate a marked inclination towards criminality, delinquency or indolence.»
This diagram illustrates how the cantons worked in cooperation with one another for the execution of administrative detention orders. It shows, for the year 1954, that the Canton of Fribourg ordered that persons be held in administrative detention in facilities located in the cantons of Neuchâtel and Vaud, and in other cantons. Persons originating from the German-speaking cantons and from the cantons of Geneva and Neuchâtel were held in detention in facilities located in Fribourg.
The «Act of 13 May 1942 on the Administrative Detention of Persons who Endanger Public Health or Safety» was in effect from 1942 to 1981. It authorised the detention of persons above the age of 18 «whose habitual delinquency or idleness endanger public health or safety.»
4. DAILY LIFE
The detention facilities are entirely cut off from the rest of society. They are generally required to be economically self-sufficient, in order to ensure that the administrative detainees do not constitute a financial burden for society. The directors of the institutions hold a great deal of power. Innumerable rules and regulations govern the monotonous daily routine of the detainees, which includes long and hard hours of repetitive tasks and forced labour. Juveniles, in some cases, receive vocational training. Women perform domestic or manufacturing tasks, while men are employed in agriculture or as craftsmen. Detainees who infringe the strict regulations, or who attempt to flee, are threatened with harsh punishment such as solitary confinement or food deprivation. Written correspondence is restricted, and both verbal and physical maltreatment are commonplace. Many cases of beatings or rape by members of the facility staffs have also been documented. For the individuals who have been locked away, there are few possibilities for making their plight known to the outside world.
Beschwerdebrief der Familie Schuler
über Zustände in der Korrektionsanstalt Kaltbach Schwyz an das Eidgenössische Justizdepartement, 1921, Schweizerisches Bundesarchiv.
«VON EINEM KARL MEISTER WISSEN WIR ZU BERICHTEN, DASS DIESER VOR CA. 4 MONATEN AUS DER ANSTALT ENTWEICHEN KONNTE, SICH JEDOCH NICHT LANGE DER GOLDENEN FREIHEIT FREUEN DURFTE, INDEM ER BALD DARAUF WIEDER EINGELIEFERT WURDE. AM 31. MAI 1921 WURDE DER BEDAUERNSWERTE VON VERWALTER MOSER, WÄRTER HUWILER UND PLANZER HALB TOTGESCHLAGEN UND ‹DURFTE› 10 TAGE LANG OHNE JEDE NAHRUNG HUNGERN. DIESER SOLL HEUTE NOCH IN EINEM KERKER, WO WEDER LUFT NOCH SONNENSCHEIN HEREIN DRINGEN KANN, LIEGEN UND AN FÜSSEN SCHWERE KUGELN TRAGEN.»
View the source
View the source
View the source
5. RETURN TO FREEDOM?
Throughout the entire period of internment, detainees remain under heavy pressure to conform, as the authorities competent for deciding on their release nearly always accept the assessment of the facility administration. The authorities also have a long reach. Even after their release from a detention facility, administrative detainees are kept under surveillance during a period of probation. This means that they live with a constant threat of being returned to detention.
The consequences of having been held in administrative detention can be far-reaching, and former detainees must live with them for the rest of their lives. Normally they have only limited possibilities for earning a livelihood and the obstacles to building a professional career are numerous. Many of the detainees later descend into poverty. The experience of detention also brings with it a wide range of physical and psychological afflictions.
6. CRITICISM
Isolated criticism of the use of administration began to be expressed – also by lawyers – almost immediately upon introduction of the measure in the 19th century. Some former detainees wrote autobiographies in which they protested the injustice that had been done to them. Such critical voices long went unheard, however. It was only in the wake the social changes of the 1960s and 1970s that growing numbers of people began to demand that detention procedures respect the rights of the individuals who were to be locked away. Regular reports in the press together with claims submitted by former detainees led to a steady change in the public perception of detention practices. Finally, in 1981, the existing laws on administrative detention, along with enforcement policies and institutional regulations that failed to respect the fundamental rights of detainees, were repealed.
In the face of growing public criticism, detention facilities gradually altered their policies and increasingly began to hire staff with socio-pedagogical training. Working together with medical and legal experts, the new personnel advocated policy improvements to ensure better circulation of information, to address and punish abuses of power in detention facilities, and to promote discussion on alternatives to detention. Despite these advances, throughout the 1970s, administrative detainees continued to report on infringements of their rights and the suffering that was inflicted on them.
Der Publizist Carl Albert Loosli, der selber einen Parcours durch verschiedene Anstalten hinter sich hat, gehört früh zu den prominentesten Kritikern der administrativen Versorgung.
Carl Albert Loosli, Schweizerische Konzentrationslager und «Administrativjustiz», Bern 1939, in: Fredi Lerch / Erwin Marti (Hg.), Administrativjustiz, Zürich 2007, S. 99.
«WAS UNTER SOLCHEN VORAUSSETZUNGEN ALLES MÖGLICH IST, GRENZT ANS UNERHÖRTE. ES GEHÖRT ZUM EMPÖRENDSTEN, DAS MAN SICH ÜBERHAUPT VORZUSTELLEN VERMAG. EIN STAAT, DER EINE DERARTIGE ‹ADMINISTRATIVJUSTIZ› GUTHEISST UND PFLEGT, SETZT DAMIT SEIN ANSEHEN ALS RECHTSSTAAT GRÖBLICH AUFS SPIEL.»
