Qualitative interviews examine prison officers' roles and perceptions in Lithuania, highlighting tensions in ongoing reforms.
In the post-Soviet Lithuanian context, prisons remain institutions profoundly shaped by the Soviet-era historical legacy, marked by outdated infrastructure and entrenched criminal subculture. Despite ongoing reforms aimed at aligning with European standards, these institutions often reflect a tension between punitive traditions and emerging rehabilitative approaches. This article examines the daily roles, responsibilities, and perceptions of prison officers in three Lithuanian prisons, where the influence of Soviet legacies intersects with contemporary reforms. Using qualitative interviews and thematic analysis, the study explores the multifaceted expectations placed on officers, including tasks such as maintaining security and fostering inmate resocialization. The findings reveal a duality in their roles as officers navigate between rigid bureaucratic structures inherited from the Soviet era and modern aspirations for humane and rehabilitative correctional systems. Officers’ views of prison as a complex institution—requiring them to balance operational demands with personal safety, manage relationships with inmates, and adapt to institutional reforms—are also discussed. This research provides nuanced insights into the lived experiences and perspectives of Lithuanian prison officers on imprisonment, contributing to a broader understanding of their roles within the evolving correctional landscape and the cultural pressures of a post-Soviet context.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tereškinas et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: