Access to justice in prisons or the limitations of prison defense

This article sought to understand the adequacy of criminal defense services within prisons. By analyzing secondary data and interviews, it describes the justiciable problems and legal needs, the lines of action, and the obstacles that the adult prison population encounters. The results show that the experience and needs that arise in prison surpass the institutional capabilities of the chilean Public Defender’s Office. Therefore, a new institutional framework must be created to meet the justice claims of prisoners.


Introduction
Public defense is generally understood mainly as a legal and technical defense during a criminal trial. However, in Chile, Article 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires that this defense be extended through to the completion of the criminal sentence, establishing the legal framework for prison defense. In 2009, a program within the Public Defender's Office (DPP) was created to address this service gap. The prions defense service includes a series of non-judicial and in-court legal proceedings that occur throughout the entire duration of the custodial sentence until its fulfillment (Lidebinsky, 2015). Although the program has been operating for over ten years, the prison defense has not been improved, nor has it been able to address the issues of -and violations of rights against -the prison population.
This article argues that the prison defense, as an extension of the criminal defense, is not equipped to address the legal needs that arise in prisons. As demonstrated The author thanks Ximena Marcazzolo and María Jesús Fernández for their contribution to this research.

3
and justified throughout this article, in contrast to the public defense within the context of criminal trials, the prison population encounters a series of challenges and problems that are generally 'non-criminal'. Many of these issues cannot be understood nor resolved using judicial logic. These "other" problems prisoners confront have never been included in the political and social agenda and it have been scarcely analyzed.

Methodology
To understand the adequacy of the criminal defense services within the prison context, this investigation describes the justiciable problems and legal needs of adult prisoners. Since access to justice has generally been understood as a civil and family law matter, it has not been considered relevant for this population. For that reason, there are not enough developed frameworks that adequately understand the dimensions and features of access to justice within prisons. Consequently, a theoretical framework is proposed to understand and apply the concept of access to justice to carceral spaces.
Information from secondary databases containing variables of justiciable problems faced by prisoners was analyzed to achieve this. One of these databases, provided by the Public Defender's Office, included the historical list of claims available through the Prison Defense, which was updated to June 2021. The second database analyzed was selected from the baseline of the study "Reintegration, desistance, and recidivism in women incarcerated in Chile" (also referred to as Women's Reintegration Study), which was conducted between 2016 and 2018 to highlight women's perspectives on the problems they faced while and after imprisonment. 1 Furthermore, to better understand the information collected, interviews were conducted with people who directly or indirectly witnessed the scope of prisoners' justiciable problems. Among those interviewed were former prisoners, their family members, correctional officers and professionals who worked directly with the imprisoned population, and others with direct relations with the prison population. These interviews addressed topics related to the needs of the incarcerated population, the factors, characteristics, and barriers that explain the current state of access to justice within prisons; and the role institutions play in Chile, such as the judiciary, Gendarmería, the DPP, the Judicial Assistance Corporation (CAJ), among others.

3
Access to justice in prisons or the limitations of prison defense

Carceral logics and access to justice in prisons
Access to justice in prisons has scarcely been studied (for an exception, see Calavita & Jenness, 2014;Grunseit et al., 2008). In part, this is a result of a restrictive view of the rights of the prison population. The following United States Supreme Court sentence states how the rights of prisoners have always been in tension with carceral logic: While prisoners enjoy many protections of the Constitution that are not fundamentally inconsistent with imprisonment itself or incompatible with the objectives of incarceration, imprisonment carries with it the circumscription or loss of many rights as being necessary to accommodate the institutional needs and objectives of prison facilities, particularly internal security and safety. (Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984), cited in Calavita & Jenness 2014, p.17) This tension disregards the international standards and jurisprudence of human rights and unduly restricts prisoners from exercising their rights to exclusively criminal matters -such as time served, parole, and change of penitentiary unit, among others. However, in addition to imprisonment-related matters, the prison population suffers justiciable problems that arise from family relations, business relations, social protection provided by the State, and the abuse or discrimination exercised by public or private workers -as well as many other possible sources. 2 The specific nature of access to justice in prisons A prison is a place of specific dynamics, logics, and social relations (Crewe, 2016), constituted by a population with high levels of social disadvantage. In imprisoned contexts, what a person would consider a problem with a neighbor, an employer, or a moneylender, becomes a direct dispute against the State (Calavita & Jenness, 2014). Therefore, considering that the disputes are essentially matters of power relations, within the prison context -imbalance and extreme vulnerability -the idea of a "dispute" becomes extremely euphemistic (Calavita & Jenness, 2014, p.186).
These characteristics shape the specific nature of access to justice in prisons. First, it is situated within a highly hierarchal and rigid context governed by certain logics and objectives that permeate the interpersonal relations and the daily routines in prison. Prisons have their own culture characterized by security, state control, and the suppression of individual autonomy. At the same time, prisons are required to instantiate the liberal logics of rights, autonomy, and protection against State abuse and discrimination. Both perspectives -control and rights-based-constitute the defining ideologies of our times (Calavita & Jenness, 2014). The challenge arises when these perspectives "collide in sometimes starkly contradictory narratives, reflecting the oppositional logics undergirding them, because rights and control are not only dominant cultural strains; they pull in opposite directions at once" (Calavita & Jenness, 2014, p. 183). Thus, any search for mechanisms to foster greater access to justice in prisons will be conditioned by this inherent tension that exists within the prison world.
Second, as a collective group, imprisoned population in Chile have cumulative social disadvantages compared to the general population. These include low levels of education, high levels of unemployment, histories of violence and abandonment, problematic drug and alcohol consumption, and other risk factors (Carvacho, 2014). Consequently, the criminal population arrives at prison with existing diverse criminal and civil law issues, little awareness of them, limited documentation, and weakened formal and informal support mechanisms and networks (Grunseit et al., 2008). In addition, the prison population presents serious cognitive disadvantages, higher levels of illiteracy, mental health problems, and other characteristics that are intensified upon confinement, thus decreasing their possibilities and capabilities to resolve conflicts and constructively engage in the community upon their release (Grunseit et al., 2008).
Hence, the existence of formal mechanisms for access to justice is not sufficient. As demonstrated in the dispute resolution and legal claims literature, "the ability and willingness to name a problem, blame someone for it, and lodge a claim is socially and culturally patterned, with vulnerable or self-blaming populations facing daunting barriers" (Calavita & Jenness, 2014, p.2).

Justiciable problems of prisoners
In addition, to deal with the criminal issues of their sentence, the imprisoned population suffers the same other difficulties and events as any other person. These justiciable problems may be generally concentrated and intensified due to this population's social disadvantage factors (Sandefur, 2010).
Thus, the imprisoned population may have needs that existed before, during the imprisonment, and after release. Regarding previous issues, they can face many problems such as financial difficulties, guardianship and child support issues, matters related to the payment of state benefits, or commercial operations. Imprisonment creates new problems since a person's sudden removal from their daily life (Grunseit et al., 2008). While imprisoned, more difficulties arise with the relocation of prison, problems emerged from segregation in a respective wing, and lack of discipline, among others. Finally, release from prison can also bring forth a new series of challenges, discrimination, difficulties in finding housing, or resolving pending problems preceding their custodial sentence.
As observed above, analyzing the justiciable problems from the current demand for solutions to the prison defense obscures the infinite issues that do not reach the formal institutional channels. In this way, for example, the statistics from prison defense in Chile show a high prevalence of claims regarding parole and relocation; however, this occurs in part because "the attorneys do not record matters addressed that are not explicitly stated in the MAM, 3 so that the definitions of services that they offer affect the configuration of the claim" (Stippel et al., 2020(Stippel et al., , p.1761 As is discussed below, not only does the lack of formal channels by which to access justice impede its use, but the opportunity to be informed in legal matters, receive support from experts and begin the process of resolving problems are also conditioned by different factors or barriers that take on a specific meaning while in prison.

The course of actions and barriers to accessing justice in prisons
When people decide to act, they look for information as a form of self-help; when they find support in others, they turn to family members, people they know, community leaders, and -in the fewest of cases -legal experts. The course of these lines of action is radically modified upon imprisonment. The search for legal information is impeded due to the lack of stable procedures, resources, and services in which adequate, timely, and trustworthy information can be solicited and collected. In addition, some prisoners do not have sufficient skills to search for information, for example, through written procedures (Grunseit et al., 2008). Legal counsel and formal representation, on the other hand, are very limited due to the lack of political will to provide access to justice within prisons and due to the inherent defense challenges while imprisoned (Carvacho, Valdés et al., 2021;Lidebinsky, 2015). This partly results from both people's inability to legally identify their problems and the brevity of sessions granted with a lawyer. These sessions are not private, are often interrupted, and are limited by the dynamics and schedules of the prison (Grunseit et al., 2008). Lastly, the absence of specific problem resolution mechanisms hinders the initiation of and participation in legal proceedings while in prison.
Further, many factors affect the chances of accessing justice for the prison population when these mechanisms exist. They commonly have incorrect beliefs regarding the procedures and their efficacy; a misunderstanding of their rights, as well as the consequences and conditions of the legal proceedings; an absence of information regarding what legal solutions are available; and a lack of confidentiality and mechanisms that accelerate and sustain communication with lawyers, among other factors (Grunseit et al., 2008). Social, psychological, cultural, political, institutional, and structural factors are present when lodging claims and during conflict resolution (Calavita & Jenness, 2014). Some of these important aspects in accessing justice within prisons are analyzed in what follows.

a. Capacity
As noted above, the incarcerated population has social disadvantages, which accumulate and overlap with justiciable problems (Carvacho et al., 2021). At the same time, this population has fewer resources and less capacity to face and resolve these problems. Imprisonment and the loss of opportunities for personal development both increase these limitations (Mulvey & Schubert, 2012). In this regard, it has been stated that the "Lack of capacity may also be masked by bravado or disinterest because people are too embarrassed, intimidated or overwhelmed to admit that they did not understand information or advice, or that they cannot read" (Grunseit et al., 2008, p.5).
Many of these restrictions arise from cultural narratives rooted in values that prevent them from exercising their rights. American society's cult of competence and the minority ethic of survival, in which there is a denial of injury in the interest of preserving self-respect, are, in this sense, "cultural forces [that] make Americans slow to perceive injury" (Calavita & Jenness, 2014, p.54). These narratives have been documented as valid for Chile (Araujo, 2017) and are reinforced within the prison culture. Other studies show that self-blame occurs primarily among individuals of lower socioeconomic status, which, in prison, is paired with the belief of not having any rights (for the Chilean context, see Stippel et al., 2020), the fear of being stigmatized as problematic by the penitentiary staff and, above all, the distress of being a victim of reprisal, especially regarding the release dates (Calavita & Jenness, 2014).
Being unable to exercise one's rights while in prison prevents one from accessing legal help. It has been argued here that, in contrast to what occurs in other contexts or with other vulnerable groups, incarceration would promote the use of law (Calavita & Jenness, 2014). This would occur to the extent that prisons are places of law, surrounded by towers and armed guards […] with ubiquitous "out-of-bounds" signs that mark the boundaries that the prisoners are not allowed to cross and indicate the penalties for violation, in addition to the everyday practices, such as disciplinary actions referred to colloquially by their numbers […] prison is what you might call "an uncommon place of law" (Calavita & Jenness, 2014, p.55).
Considering that these authors reached their conclusion based on the very frequently used prison grievance system in the United States, it is worth asking if this active legal mobilization would be possible without a complaint system, such as the case in Chile. It is likely that this institutional barrier decisively affects the development of legal awareness among prisoners.
Notwithstanding, it is important to note that there is evidence from disability literature asserting that ability and legal awareness are not static features in a person's life. Instead, they interact dynamically over time as a person's identity develops and the individual's social and institutional position changes (Calavita & Jenness, 2014). This implies that the processes of exercising one's rights and developing the capabilities to access justice can change and be shaped by different factors. This is particularly true regarding identity changes, thus giving rise to two significant effects. Firstly, as previously demonstrated (Grunseit et al., 2008), how justiciable problems are resolved can vary depending on the stage of a person's imprisonment. The beginning of incarceration is characterized by high stress and instability, thus reducing prisoners' awareness of and ability to take care of legal matters. Secondly, if identity changes can decisively alter the mobilization of rights, desistance processes that foster change (McNeill, 2006) becomes an essential ally in accessing justice.

b. Conflict of logics
There are potentially conflictive logics that operate within the justice system. Within the criminal justice system overlaps the custody system, the Judiciary, the state bureaucracy, and other organizations -human rights protection organizations, healthcare institutions, or organizations of family members of prisoners -with different organizational logics. These different logics entail routine conflicts that affect the resolution of justiciable problems (Grunseit et al., 2008). For example, the visiting hours for lawyers or prison defenders conflict with the lockdown times, the limited telephone use to contact people outside the prison, and the lack of adequate space in which to receive legal advice are examples where the security and control aims impede incarcerated persons from exercising their rights (Carvacho et al., 2021b). A realistic reform for access to justice in prison must contemplate these overlapping logics.

c. Brokers of justice
Incarcerated people have no choice but to get support from others for information and legal help. However, these advisors may be challenging for those who use them (Grunseit et al., 2008). First, for the prison population, it is unclear whom they can turn to for support. They often turn to prison staff members who are not prepared to provide legal aid or are unwilling to do so. In other cases, the family trust unscrupulous lawyers for advice who charge them for non-existence procedures (Grunseit et al., 2008). In both cases, there are two risks: on the one hand, the risk of receiving wrong or malicious information, and, on the other, being exploited given the dependency relationship. Research has reported losing money, property, or incurring debts by intentional and guilty actions of intermediaries (Carvacho et al., 2021b;Grunseit et al., 2008). As such, it is important to consider the role of intermediaries supervising and enacting their actions to prevent informal procedures.

d. Prison culture
The last factor that affects prisoners' behavior and how they receive legal services is the prison culture. As prison sociology has highlighted, this culture arises from the adaptation process, given some 'pains' of living in prison (Crewe, 2011(Crewe, , 2016Sykes, 1958). One of the first expressions of this culture is the prison population's own definition in direct opposition to the prison staff and the justice system. Accordingly, the pursuit of justice through institutional channels can involve retaliations, stigmatization, abuse, and violence by means of the prison staff, as well as by their own peers. Furthermore, violence as a response is widely hidden and accepted, which promotes the deployment of conflict resolution by informal means (Grunseit et al., 2008). In addition, the stigma of being a criminal 'worthy of punishment' distances prisoners from seeing themselves as 'worthy of justice', thus promoting 1 3 inaction about justiciable problems. This stigma instills the idea that if someone deserves to be in prison, they should be governed by its rules, which implies not making any demands (Calavita & Jenness, 2014). This is why the prison culture encourages conformity and inaction, hindering proactivity in every aspect.
The combination of these barriers with cultural demands perpetuates inaction concerning justiciable problems. Inaction is the most prevalent response for the general population and even more for the imprisoned population. This makes access to justice in prison a more complex challenge. Delivering justice depends partly on the specific group involved and the context in which they find themselves (Sandefur, 2015). For example, children and adolescents, illiterate persons, people with disabilities, or highly educated persons will require differentiated intensity regarding access-to-justice policies. Also, their implementation should acknowledge their specific situations. For example, a child under alternative state custody and a child under the care of their parents or an educated incarcerated or free adult face different challenges to be addressed.

Results
Data and interviews showed similar findings to those found in the literature. Some of these new justiciable problems and access to justice issues are outlined in what follows.

Justiciable problems of the prison population
a. Material/economic conditions Prisons do not have minimal conditions for living in dignity. Prisoners do not have enough resources for food or basic personal hygiene products. Many interviews highlight that the prison population's main problem is diminishing their dignity.
The lack of basic conditions also affects those who work in prison, particularly the custody officers. A former officer described working in prisons where the common areas, where they had to walk daily, were filled with human excrement. The "great pending debt" (Prison Defender) includes the presence of bathrooms (which are currently in ruins), living spaces, hot water showers, and sufficient food.
b. Social support, packages, and visits Receiving packages and visits are perceived as part of the primary problems in their lifes. The decision of whether a package or products can be delivered is subject to the prison guards' mood or their relationship with the prisoner. Many of the products that families bring to the prison are lost in the infinite number of obstacles that the institution imposes. According to a leader of a family member organization, it is even more difficult for those sentenced for drug trafficking crimes who are extremely discriminated. Prison staff confiscates their packages to be sold inside, and the prison personnel keeps the profits.
On the other hand, visits are one of the most sensitive topics for prisoners. According to the Study of Women's Reintegration, the main reasons for not receiving visitors include not wanting to have a visitor (22.5%), the cost of the visit (18%), the impossibility of receiving visitors during visiting hours (14%), and not wanting to be visited or seen in prison (10%). When the women were asked if the conditions of the visiting regime had a negative effect on the frequency of visits, 32% of the surveyed women reported that it had negative consequences. The exhaustive inspection of their family members and friends (80%), the lack of privacy during visits (9%), and the long wait time (4%) were the main problems identified.
The interviews also revealed the arbitrariness of conjugal visits. The women's and men's prison population received different treatments: "Why do I have to wait six months to have a conjugal room with my partner while they [the men] can have a woman visit every week, even different women, and no one is monitoring them?" (Former female prisoner). In addition, they require women to have their vaccines and medical exams up to date, while the men population is not even required to register their partners. Some establishments do not have adequate conditions for partner or family visits: Everyone is all together, squeezed in, and it is very uncomfortable. In private prisons mainly, the prisoners have to pay other prisoners or make arrangements with the prison staff who charges them, I don't know, ten, fifteen, twenty thousand, I don't know how much more so that couples can have time alone with their partners in the bathrooms, in the middle of visiting hours… (Leader of an organization of prisoners' family members).
Thus, the absence of adequate spaces and the unpredictability of visits mainly affect women. The Women's Reintegration study demonstrated that 22% of women declared not having had a visit during their sentence, primarily affecting older women and women with longer sentences. 5 Likewise, the baseline data indicate that the visits' frequency decreases during their prison stay. For example, upon arriving, 34% of women report having had a visit from their maternal figure every week; however, this figure drops to 15% during the last six months of their sentence. 6 Hence, age and sentence length are factors that negatively impact having visitors.
Contact with family and close ones is a generalized problem among the prison population. This is especially important for women, of which 40% mentioned not receiving aid or support from family or other third parties. Concerning emotional support and the possibility of sharing their griefs and problems, 74% of women stated receiving this support, a figure that decreases among older women. 7 In this context, the role of social workers and the psychosocial team in directly supporting the imprisoned population is expressed as essential. These professionals are contacted mainly to access intra-prison benefits, solicit permits and relocations, among other actions.
Many women can't see their children because they don't have a good social worker that can facilitate the necessary actions […] if you don't have the social worker's support in that case, I mean, who else can help you? If she is the connection to the outside world. (Former female prisoner).
Yet, some interviewees expressed that the professionals did not exhibit much empathy and would tend to severely judge and punish those who requested a specific procedure or needed some help.
The importance of prison professional personnel also explains the perception of arbitrariness in granting permissions and poor staff support to them. A prisoner's relative stated that for 4,000 prisoners, there are only two or three professionals. According to the interviewees, the prison social support appears when no other NGO can manage the case, thus forcing the institution to take responsibility.
These forms of support, as mentioned by the interviewees, are even more important considering the marginalization and lack of opportunities of the prison population: It is very important… ..the support network, we, as I tell you, work in a certain way and above all social assistance […] the majority of families are a population of … of a vulnerability in all aspects: social, educational, financial, etc., so we have certain limits, there are things we can do or refer to the healthcare network or to the corresponding service, but it is quite limited. (Prison defense lawyer) As the quotation demonstrates, this population's vulnerability prevents the prison defense lawyer from adequately addressing their needs. This is highly problematic since the prison defense is the most specialized program to support prison population.
c. Access to healthcare According to the surveys, access to healthcare is an area of many shortcomings. In addition to the lack of medical care, the interviewees also describe the mistreatment prisoners receive when they go to the infirmary. They even narrate stories of sexual abuse committed by medical personnel: "Imagine, during that 1 3 Access to justice in prisons or the limitations of prison defense time, I was […] about forty years old and even then, I was subjected to whatever the paramedic wanted, it was his word against mine. Yeah, I mean, imagine, I was an adult woman, grown; what happens with younger women?" (Former female prisoner). Furthermore, they also emphasize the unsatisfactory mental health care inside the facilities, the scarcity of psychologists, and the complete absence of psychiatrists. In this context, the neglectful prescription of medicines is a common practice: We had a psychiatrist in the Metropolitan Region and one who would travel throughout the country. We didn't have more than three psychiatrists throughout all the prisons in Chile. However, strangely enough, although there weren't any psychiatrists and very few psychologists, an astronomical amount of more than twelve thousand, let's say, medicines that were given to prisoners, which were prescription drugs, for example, Clonazepan and all the pills that are prescribed to people who have mental health problems. (Leader of organization of family members of prisoners) According to an interview with a religious worker, prison healthcare is an area with a very slow response and stigmatization, especially towards women. The consumption of drugs is a topic that is still not possible to resolve: few resources would be received for the women, and little willingness to make the necessary changes -not due to the bad intentions on the part of the Gendarmería, but rather "the ill-will of the public service, in general, of categorizing prisoners as secondclass persons" (religious worker in prisons). In the words of a former prisoner: If you're lucky, you have the right to go to the hospital, but you have to arrive in agony, otherwise, they don't pay any attention to you. And healthcare, one believes that they are going to die there all the time because you see your peers dying all the time.

d. Problems with Gendarmería
Persons who have direct contact with the prison describe the prison staff's poor treatment: It's a culture [in which] they believe that they can do what they want with the inmates, they treat them badly, they hit them. I mean, imagine, I've been to the prison and they hit the inmates, with me right there, and I'm their lawyer and the gendarmes are hitting them, mistreating them, … I would also say, money issues, they are constantly threatening them, um… why to talk about much more delicate situations, where there have been incidences of sexual violence, abuse, rapes, … […] There is a permanent culture of aggression and no respect, and for them … they think, as I say, that they can do whatever they want and truthfully it is very jarring. (Prison defense lawyer) This culture of the uniformed personnel is also reflected in the interviews that reported incidences of corruption, violence and arbitrariness in their treatment.
According to some statements, the prison personnel are the ones who bring in the drugs and cellphones; however, there are certain codes, so they cannot be reported -even though they have committed abuses and bad practices. In this context, the women are victims of the prison workers' constant mocks, creating a sense of vulnerability and absence of rights: No, rights are not valid in prison. It is an underworld… the police, Gendarmería are the gods in the prison, they have the key to our liberty. If I rebel against the Gendarmería while in prison, I will never be let out early. I would have to fulfill… having fulfilled the seven years hair by hair, tip to tip, but since I gave in, lowered my head, and obeyed their regime, I was able to apply for benefits. (Former female prisoner) This status of the uniformed staff can be expressed through the ability to move people between wings or to other facilities, which, in the words of the interviewees, is used to maintain order -and not necessarily based on legitimate reasons. For this reason, they state that, when there is a positive leader who encourages the reintegration processes, they are immediately moved to another facility. Imprisonment affects not only the prisoners but also every person who spends time in prison. One prison defense lawyer affirms that they witnessed abuse and beatings while visiting the prison. The correctional officers are also exposed to the consequences of living in prison because there have very poor working conditions, few support networks, and other problems that many times go unseen. This last point is also highlighted by a relative who affirms that the prison guards also suffer abuse and come from contexts of violence and exclusion, for which they too should receive support.
In the case of the women, these views contrast with the data expressed in the Women's Reintegration research. In this study, 85% of women surveyed agreed that the treatment of the facility's staff was respectful, and 76% stated that they receive support, when necessary, from prison staff. One possible explanation for this discrepancy could be in the effect of the age. While 94% of female 56 years or older agree that the prison staff's treatment is respectful; this affirmation is only recognized by 57% of female prisoners between the ages of 19 and 25. This difference is also repeated when asked about the support they receive from the prison staff. In accordance with these figures, 91% and 85% of the women interviewed declare never having been victims of aggression by Gendarmería staff nor by other prisoners, respectively. However, when asking younger women, these figures decrease for both variables.

e. Criminal law issues
The people interviewed did not mention criminal issues when asked about their primary needs. Part of this contrast between the institutional perception of prisoners' issues and the most felt needs of the incarcerated population is expressed by a prison defense lawyer, who refers to these problems as "one of the most important issues". She affirms that there are many legal needs and that they are the first issues that prisoners bring to her attention: If someone talks with prisoners, um… they wish for their case to be revisited, right, it is the first thing they will ask you: "no, I'm wrongly accused" or "I had a bad lawyer, they didn't represent me, they didn't show up for the appeal," etc. etc. Right, it's the first thing that we receive. (Prison defense lawyer) Without ignoring the existence of these problems, as the comparative literature shows, the way of approaching this population's needs demonstrates the limited scope with which lawyers can address their problems. For this reason, many times "other" problems are overlooked.
One of these main problems is linked to family matters that are resolved in court. Interviewees affirm that women do not have legal representation, nor specialized aid and advice.
We need a family law attorney here that helps women with custody matters when a child turns two years old and must leave […] Today we are in special circumstances due to the pandemic, but in normal times, the woman or man who takes the child, who has completed the bonding period with the mother, this process is sometimes cut short and the woman has no one to turn to because she does not have someone who can represent her. (Prison religious worker) Accordingly, lawyers' approach to addressing the prison population's needs and problems excludes important matters, such as those pertaining to family, work, and civil law, among others. An example of this includes the primary requests presented to the prison defense. Two-thirds of them are related to their sentence: petition for parole (13.7%), prison facility or wing relocation (16.5%), petition for Sunday leave (7.6%), petition for in-house arrest (7.2%), petition for mixed sentence (5.2%), other legal demands (4.8%), permission for unified sentence (4,2%), request for sentence discount (3,3%), among others. The low rate of petitions made regarding the infringement of rights and participation in resocialization programs demonstrates that the prison defense service is not considered a solution for non-criminal issues. In a way, this highlights how the demand for legal services adjusts to what is offered, which in this case is legal aid offered by lawyers.

f. Loss of rights and reintegration
Numerous cases express the perception of completely losing their rights. Many comments express abandonment and prejudices towards the prison population. Among incarcerated people, there's a shared sentiment that "it's thought that we are the scum of society." When one person in Chile is incarcerated or the court rules provisional deten-tion… … they immediately lose everything: citizenship, the right to vote, they lose their right to family, they lose their right to practically everything. (Leader of organization of family members of prisoners) Hence, in congruence with one of the most recurring obstacles this population faces in exercising their rights, it is not surprising that 14% of the total demands presented during 2012 and 2021 were withdrawn by the convicted person during the course of processing the request. The loss of rights is experienced as a stigma that has concrete effects on the ability to exercise through incarceration.
Still, the interviewees shared that social reintegration is the most important necessity for the prison population. According to the interviews, reintegration policies are almost non-existent. When there is intervention, it ends up making the prison population more vulnerable, especially upon being released: Because if they don't equip you with good skills, how are you going to settle when you're on the street with your child and everything? Because the programs are not good, there is no follow-up, it's to say they send you into the street like a bird in the open air. (Former woman prisoner) The Women's Reintegration study shows that, of the 225 women surveyed for the baseline, only 117 were eligible for benefits to reduce their sentence -which is to say that 108 prisoners did not qualify for these benefits. In addition, among the eligible women, only 52% had applied for in-prison benefits. This percentage varies according to the age group of women. 8 Regarding the social reintegration programs and training offered by Gendarmería, only 37% of the women surveyed had participated in one of the training at the penitentiary unit. 9 Lastly, concerning the possibility of working inside the prison facility, only 41% declared having had a job during their sentence.
The figures demonstrate the structural barriers that the population with short sentences faces in reintegration and the lack of access for female population, especially those of younger age groups. However, this verifies the non-existence of policies during imprisonment and the lack of support upon release and in the first few months after release. This is crucial, as the data shows that this is one of the main concerns of the women population. The Women's Study shows that 34% believe it will be difficult to rebuild their relationship with their families once they are released. Similarly, the same percentage think it will not be easy to resume the relationship with their children. 10 Another identified difficulty is the search for housing and employment. Regarding the first, 17% of the women surveyed declare that it will be difficult for them to find housing once out of prison. In this case, a difference can be observed in different age groups, where women in older groups await more difficult prospects. While only 6% of women aged 56 or older think it will be challenging to find housing, 24% of women between the ages of 19 and 25 affirm the same. Similarly, 65% of women surveyed think searching for a job will be a difficult challenge, and this perception decreases as the age of the surveyed women increases. Finally, 32% believe it will be difficult to abstain from consuming drugs outside of prison, which increases to 57% among women between the ages of 19 and 25. This tendency is consistent with the difficulty in abstaining from crime. In general, 39% of women surveyed declare that it will be difficult not to commit another crime. This assertion correlates with the age group of the women surveyed, increasing to 64% for women between 19 and 25.
In this sense, one of the former female prisoner expressed the challenges of reintegrating: You don't stop being a criminal overnight, considering that the majority, almost 70 or 80% of women deprived of liberty come from homes with little resources, domestic violence, lack of education, and poverty… in the end, the prison is filled with poverty, I mean, with poor people. Ultimately, poverty is what is criminalized. (Former female prisoner) As stated by a religious worker, individual-focused reintegration policies are not only necessary to prevent infringing upon prisoners' dignity, but also a duty that the State must fulfill: Deprivation of liberty cannot at the same time deprive someone of their dignity. Furthermore, the pope said in his own words, "You all deserve reintegration, and the state is obligated to ensure your reintegration," and he says, "and not treat all of you as one case… like one collective issue, rather taking into account each one in your own process, your own individuality and your particular needs". That is what is needed. (Prison religious worker)

Access to justice a. Getting help in prisons
There is no room for access to justice within the prison context. According to a prison defender, this is a result of the non-existent criminal policies and the lack of political interest in this topic: "In-prison justice does not exist in Chile, at least.
[…] Today the compliance with sentences is left to nobody's fate, and there is an absolute violation of the human rights of those incarcerated" (Prison Defender). In a way, this is also a structural problem: obtaining all the expert help that one needs is impossible without changing the prison system itself. While the current efforts focus on complying with sentences, more energy should be dedicated to reintegration and rehabilitation policies.
The interviewees who directly interact with the prison affirm that the correctional officers would not help resolve issues. "They didn't do anything," "they don't listen to you," and "you can't depend on Gendarmería for anything" are just a few of the statements shared by former prisoners when asked about the institution. This coincides with the fact that more than 165,000 claims were made between 2012 and 2021, and Gendarmería presented only 2.8% of them. In addition, the interviewees state that the correctional officers do not exhibit fair treatment and that they would only do something as a means of following the institution's rules. While sometimes an officer would resolve problems, this is only in a few cases -for example, with first-timers or in the good behavior wings -and, as such, it depends solely on the officer's willingness. Again, this demonstrates the institution's capacity to "create and resolve" problems, as one of the interviewees affirmed.
A woman who was imprisoned reported that, in some cases, problems were resolved in exchange for money: There are some well-meant correctional officers, a major, some lieutenant that can pitch in and help you, but… there are very few that will help you, not all, and if you're in for drug trafficking, everything is in exchange for money.
[…] There is differential treatment depending on your… your financial solvency. (Former female prisoner) Nevertheless, there are matters that the Gendarmería cannot solve due to the lack of means, resources, or willingness. As observed above, the relationship between the imprisoned population and the prison staff is different among women and men, in which there is more solidarity and closeness among women.
In contrast to the above, a former Gendarmería officer points out that many of the problems that the prison population faces are effectively resolved by the institution, and that sometimes it implies going around the protocols so that the prisoners are at ease. The interviews reveal the importance of solving matters through Gendarmería since they have direct contact with the prison population.
Given the above, a question arises: to whom should one turn? The interviews mentioned different types of support. For example, they underlined support from various NGOs, the prisoner's relatives' groups, and prisoners.
Some of the people interviewed expressed the fundamental role social organizations play in offering support (whether legal, social, or financial). NGOs dedicated to criminal matters and other organizations, such as Leasur or 81 Razones, provide support "in all areas", from donating clothes to responding to legal questions. One of the interviewees stated that more NGOs are needed to help, since "the Gendarmes don't have any idea about anything." Furthermore, a former female prisoner mentions that the Foundation Mujer Levántate played a significant role in her reintegration. The importance of social organizations is reflected by the magnitude of calls that one group reported receiving: between 100 and 150 daily calls, reporting torture and illegitimate surcharges. However, the information gathered from the analysis of the Prison Defense Office shows that only 0.1% of the demands are presented via social organizations.
In addition, many of the problems that the prison population faces are resolved by family members or with help from other people in prison. Regarding family members, 13.8% of the total demands from the last decade were presented by family members, highlighting the importance of the support prisoners receives from their relatives to resolve problems. Moreover, former female prisoners recognize the solidarity that exists between them. A religious institution member also highlights that the female population support and care for one another, including organizing donation campaigns for those in need. Similarly, interviews mention the role of the facility spokesperson or representative in helping others with written documents, receiving packages, and other procedures.
Lastly, some interviewees mention the presence of churches in solving their problems. This was also highlighted by a former member of Gendarmería, who declares that religious groups (especially evangelicals) help solve some of the issues within the prison -and, above all, help reduce prisoners' tensions and fears. The same occurs with 'las bandas' (the groups) that act in support to resolve issues on the inside.
As previously mentioned, only one of the interviewees recognized Gendarmería as a means of resolving their problems. "Due to humanity, sometimes they help you," stated a former male prisoner. In this same light, there is a general feeling that there are no formal mechanisms that can offer support to them, since, as above, this is dependent upon the goodwill of the professional. Only one interviewee claimed that the judges are the actors who can provide the fairest solutions to the problems of the prison population. On the other hand, a prison defense lawyer states that, although the defense office plays a significant role, they have a critical view of the institution. "The system is a meat grinding machine," the lawyer states. This perspective correlates with the low number of claims, 16%, presented through the Prison Defense Office, which has increased to 20% as of 2020.

b. Access to information
Misinformation is the general rule in the prison environment, especially information regarding the benefits and opportunities for prisoners. Therefore, it is not surprising that of the total number of claims presented between 2012 and 2021, only 40% were processed effectively and 22.3% did not meet the requirements necessary to be processed.
A former female prisoner mentioned that the only vehicle to access information is via Facebook, where they can learn about the support some civil society organizations offer. In general, the prison population remains unaware of the Prison Defense Office. Another interviewee thinks that a small percentage of the imprisoned population knows their rights and duties and that there should be much more information to understand what they are entitled to do in certain circumstances. Moreover, a former officer shared a similar perspective, suggesting that very few people are aware of their benefits and highlighting the importance of prison education: Today, hopefully, 30, 40% clearly understand their rights, duties, obligations, Decree 518, which is the decree that governs all penitentiary residents and establishments, the timeframes to apply, etc.: who can apply, how to apply, appeals on the grounds of unconstitutionality, appeals for constitutional protection, etc., on this subject I think we have work to do. And I think that it should be, as prison schools teach math, Spanish, and history, there should be a class on prison education with the fundamentals that an inmate needs to know, or, as the authorities should have the duty of dedicating time during the hearings in which the inmate ask questions and receive answers. (Former Gendarmería officer) In addition, there is a feeling of abandonment. Former prisoners share that, even if everyone had access to information, no one would provide support when they need it: "There isn't a department or someone that cares to provide rights education, and besides that, if they were aware (of their rights), who would represent them? The public defender's office?" (Former female prisoner).

c. Dealing with authorities
The people who were interviewed almost always referred to the treatment by the authorities in a negative light, in which "Gendarmería does whatever they wish," (Former female prisoner), based on the injustices and lack of trust of the prison's subculture hierarchy: "They don't listen to you -it's sad. They mistreat you, and they don't pay you any attention. Not even in the infirmary or anything. They don't offer opportunities and know they can abuse you" (Former prisoner). Part of this mistreatment is linked to the anonymity treatment of the prisoners, associating them as lost criminals: They continue to look at us like we're criminals, view us as a number, and see us as offenders that… "No, for this one, how much time do we give them until they come back?", "Yeah, I bet one year"; I mean, the correctional officers make bets on how long before one comes back. (Former female prisoner) When this dynamic is broken down, the positive effects are evident. One of the interviewees described the case of a correctional officer that played with the prisoners and controlled the wing based on respect. The result was that everyone was on good terms with one another: For months there was no one injured with cuts, not one death nor disrespect toward the officer, and the officer was seated calmly while all the prisoners did what they needed to do. He had an understanding with a positive leader of the wing so that that person could help him manage the prison population, even prohibiting the use of drugs. He arrived and said: "alright, here no one uses pasta (crack), here everyone works, everyone studies, everyone plays soccer, and no one shows any disrespect." … Here no, it is about finding that person that has the power to create fraternity in a place, because it can be done, many don't think it can, but we have seen it, change the largest gang members and later they are the wing monitors. (Leader of organization of family members of prisoners) From the strategic perspective, a former Gendarmería officer stated that treating prison population well was always something he ensured to establish since it was beneficial to maintain order. He wanted to develop close ties with them, displaying empathy and affection, which undoubtedly brought him closer to the people, and started to work based on equitable and respectful treatment.
Access to justice in prisons or the limitations of prison defense

Changing a diffuse institutional system of access to justice in prisons
The current state of the prison environment, concerning the mechanisms, agencies, or institutions that in one way or another provide solutions to prisoners' justiciable problems, is highly diffuse. Within these institutions are (a) The prison unit technical council, a collegiate advisory body whose objective is to propose, articulate and execute activities that actively contribute to the social reintegration of persons under the authority of Gendarmería. (b) The parole board that is informed by the technical council reports and decides on the applications for parole. They have been widely criticized for various reasons, but mainly for their little use and scarce support in social reintegration processes (Figueroa Ossa, 2020;Ossa, 2018;Villagra & Droppelmann, 2016). (c) The Corporación de Asistencia Judicial (CAJ) (Legal Aid Corporation), is a decentralized public service whose mission is to provide guidance and legal aid to persons who need support and legally represent them (Law 17.995 that established the Legal Aid Corporation, 1981). (d) El Mecanismo Nacional para la Prevención de la Tortura y otros Tratos o Penas Crueles, Inhumanos o Degradantes (MNPT) (National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane o Degrading Treatments or Punishments). Its functions include periodically examining prisoners' conditions, as well as the treatment they receive, and regularly making prevention visits and ad-hoc visits (Article 3, Law 21.154, which designates the National Institute of Human Rights as the national mechanism of prevention against torture and other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatments and punishments, 2019). (e) The Judiciary that makes weekly and semestral visits to prisons. Regarding the visits' reports, it has been affirmed that although the judges are familiar with the precarious conditions and lack of protection within prisons, they do not assume an active role to change it (Stippel & Medina González, 2021). Also, it has been argued that these reports do not comply with the international standards of the prison inspectors (Castro Morales et al., 2020).
These various institutions and mechanisms are situated in a highly vague normative context. Most of the specific regulations are set in different documents from Gendarmería which do not constitute legal-level mandates (Carvacho et al., 2021a).
In this context, the Prison Defense, the program of the Public Defender's Office, represents the policy that most explicitly aims to attend to the prison population's concerns. Even so, the analysis of historical claims shows that, along with some specific difficulties (such as the high number of non-successful claims or the delay in processing them), the prison defense reaches a small percentage of the prison population, especially concerning women, and it is focused solely on matters linked to serving a sentence. In addition, the secondary data analysis and interviews indicate that this program cannot adequately respond to justiciable problems. In effect, while criminal issues appear to have less relevance among the concerns of the prison population, other sensitive matters such as the continued contact with family members, the urgency and requests for release, and the possibility of accessing training, education, and reintegration programs seems to escape the predominating criminal logic of the prison defense.
Although the prison defense incorporates a social-legal duo team, other studies (Carvacho et al., 2021b) show the centrality given to the lawyers within the teams, not only in terms of leadership but also because the lawyers are who have formal work contracts with the Public Defender's Office. These teams do not appear to be adequately equipped to deal with non-criminal matters and lack the tools and skills to provide justice solutions beyond legal or administrative resolutions. In effect, the literature shows that the lawyers' prominence in many cases inhibits the finding of optimal solutions and limits the wide range of possible measures (Barendrecht, 2012). In this sense, it is essential to take into account lessons based on the literature, namely that "simply because lawyers appear impactful under the current state of affairs does not mean that they are the best solution to problems we observe," (Sandefur, 2015, p.456).
Therefore, the prison defense goes against the evidence found in this investigation and the literature on access to justice in prisons: it doesn't simplify its procedures, nor does it develop clear mechanisms with simple language that allow persons to activate their rights on their own terms and not according to the terms expected by the court attorneys (Sandefur, 2015). It also doesn't reduce the number of intermediaries, nor recognize the moments during incarceration when prisoners would most benefit from the prison defense (Grunseit et al., 2008). Furthermore, it doesn't provide its services based on a knowledge of the justiciable problems that the imprisoned population faces. Without a situated understanding of the claim, the services they provide will always be unsatisfactory in meeting the actual existing claims (Stippel et al., 2020) -the top of the iceberg, as previously described. In other words, measuring the potential demands for legal services within prisons is necessary, and cannot be limited by what is currently being offered. To obtain this measure, it is possible to incorporate the vast comparative experience of methodologies of the legal needs and justiciable problems surveys (OECD & Open Society Foundations, 2019). Considering that the experience of naming, blaming, and revendicating a problem dramatically depends on one's life stage (Grunseit et al., 2008) and identity processes (Calavita & Jenness, 2014), it is vital to develop longitudinal studies that measure not only the prevalence but also the processes of seeking and accessing justice. (Carvacho et al., 2021a).
In addition, the prison defense fails to establish itself as a continuum of legal services that prevent the diffusion of those services. To avoid this, it would be necessary to have an agency, in one place, that can provide information, representation, social support, and promote alternatives to the formal mechanisms offered by lawyers, among other activities (OECD & Open Society Foundations, 2016). This diversity of responses, as shown in the results of this research and the theoretical framework, reflects the different paths involved in access to justice -the 'phases' or the 'journey' to accessing justice (Open Government Partnership, 2019; World Justice Project, 2019).
Thus, the results of this study and the elements of the journey to accessing justice in prisons or contexts of confinement reveal that the prison defense has limited institutional tools to offer a service that meets the needs of the prisoners. The unique characteristics that custody entails, and the distinctive features of the prison culture and population create challenges to in-prison justice that surpass the work of the public defender's offices. The demands for in-prison justice will not be met if only managed by the prison defenders or the prison institution. Therefore, other actors and another access-to-justice institution should be created to solve the prison population's needs effectively.
Overall, it must be considered that any mechanism to deliver justice in prisons must have specific strategies for the different populations that exist within the prison. As demonstrated above, the women prisoners' needs are very different from those of the men prisoners. Similarly, the specificities and dynamics of the needs of other vulnerable groups, such as sexual minorities, immigrants, and old prisoners, must be considered. The literature clearly shows that, although the justiciable problems apply to the entire population, the consequences and dynamics of those issues differ according to the specific groups' needs (Sandefur, 2010).
This study seeks to understand the penitentiary world from a socio-legal perspective that goes beyond a criminal law focus. It attempts to emphasize the criminal defense's limitations within prisons to the extent that it understands that the prison population faces life problems just like any other person, which due to imprisonment, become more urgent and more challenging to resolve. In this sense, the prison defense is neither intended nor able to confront these complexities. This is highly relevant when considering that adverse experiences within prison increase the feeling of the injustice of punishment (Liebling, 2011), reducing the possibilities of successful processes of social reintegration and desistance from crime (McNeill, 2006). In other words, a "just" experience of a person's sentence (Tyler, 2003) fosters better future results, while simultaneously improving the country's levels of social peace.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.